Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilaksh


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Ilaksh

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

I am this article's original creator, and I no longer feel that this subject needs a separate article. It's already covered sufficiently in Ithkuil, and has no independent notability. Bob A (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What has changed? Why did it originally need a separate article according to you? --JorisvS (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose I thought the topic was more notable than I do now. Bob A (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So why do you now think differently? --JorisvS (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly because I'm not interested in this anymore, and secondly because I have different views on notability. Bob A (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have something more substantial than just personal interests and views for us? --JorisvS (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I have to explain. The nomination stands for itself. Bob A (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not a vote. As the nominator you should thus be prepared to discuss the matter, explaining your reasons properly is part of that, definitely when asked for them. --JorisvS (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought you were asking me to defend the evolution of my personal views. I've already given an explanation of why I think this should be deleted, so I'm not sure what more you want me to say. Bob A (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping for something more concrete, more objective if you will, as that could have been relevant in making up my (and other people's) mind(s). If there just isn't anything else, so be it. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You could merge/redirect it without this formality. —Tamfang (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The information is already there; it was my understanding that this had to go through AfD. Bob A (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how a very short description of why Ilaksh was created and a somewhat more detailed overview of its script could constitute "the information is already there". --JorisvS (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only material in the article not duplicated from the article on Ithkuil is the phonology section, which I consider to be outside the scope of notability. Bob A (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability on WP refers to articles, not content. --JorisvS (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to WP:Indiscriminate rather than WP:Notability. However, since you're an inclusionist, you'll probably think differently, so you're free to copy that information to the article Ithkuil. Bob A (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that can be relevant, none of these points have anything to say that can be linked to this article. Note also that phonology is an important aspect of a language, natural and constructed alike. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * AfD is required if the article is to vanish without a trace. That doesn't happen with merge/redirect. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, my 2p. I am neiter an inclusionist nor a deletionist, but more like a mergist. And that's what I probably would done here as well. Ithkuil indeed is a very notable language, but I'm not sure if the same can be said about Ilaksh. If it is true what the article says, that it is some kind of Ithkuil spin-off (and as such part of the same project), then I think it would be wisest to move those contents to the Ithkuil article that are not already there, and turn this one into a redirect. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

So far what I've seen here are really only feelings and opinions. I really care only for the arguments, the arguments behind opinions. You can convince me that such a thing is better, but not with feelings and opinions. How to define "a spin-off" as such and why? Why then do you think it wisest to redirect it to another part of the same project. But firstly, notability itself, when exactly should we consider something notable and why (the definition on WP:Notability leaves some room for discussion here) and does the subject comply with this? --JorisvS (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete As the nominator clearly says in his nomination, the topic is already given substantial coverage in the article on Ithkuil. Additionally, the topic at hand is not supported by significant, independent coverage in multiple sources. Furthermore, as a personal aside, I would like to swat several persons above (aside from the nominator) with a bit of trout for giving us an AfD conversation featuring over 10 bits of point and counterpoint without a single vote. Outstanding. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The unspoken your turn-my turn symmetry of the above 10 bits of point and counterpoint seems too cooperative for separate individuals. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Uzma, Please direct your (totally ungrounded) accusation of sockpuppetry to the appropriate channels. --JorisvS (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ginsengbomb. This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. Personally, I was trying to get an opinion based on sound arguments, that's why I didn't vote. --JorisvS (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The topic at hand is not supported by significant, independent coverage in multiple sources. Here is the lead of the article: "Ilaksh is a constructed human language marked by outstanding grammatical complexity and an innovative system of writing. It is based on Ithkuil. The language’s author, John Quijada, presents ..." Is the grammatical complexity really outstanding? Is the system of writing really innovative? I especially like how the name of the language’s author is worked right up into the article lead. Nice self-promotion. At this point, Carnac the Magnificent would probably be saying "Nominated for deletion." Then, tearing open the envelope to reveal the question, the question would be "What is the future status of the Ithkuil article." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I detest the expression "self-promotion" in this context. First of all, would you expect the name J.S. Bach to appear only in the third alinea of the Brandenburg concertos article? Of course not - it's perfectly normal that in an article about a book, a movie, a musical work or a constructed language the name of the author is mentioned in the first sentence. Secondly, it is wrong to assume beforehand that articles about works of art are by definition written by their authors. In this case this is quite obviously not the case. I know John Quijada and I can assure you that he is a very decent and honourable person who'd rather not indulge in that sort of things. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  14:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.