Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ithkuil


 * 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 Keep. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-18 08:44Z 

Ithkuil

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable constructed language with no speakers. Has already been deleted once. Luvcraft 18:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No vote - A language having no speakers should not count towards deletion. As it was reposted after deletion, I suggest researching from the article creator or language inventor as to notability. -- J  Morgan (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the language creator from elsewhere on the internet--I'll try to get ahold of him. --Miskwito 18:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I sent him a message. But I'm not sure if that's actually an appropriate thing to do...? --Miskwito 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has been translated into six other languages already, has a lot of Russian links (and featured in a magazine there I believe, see the external links) and also isn't supposed to have any speakers. Other IALs can be deleted for this reason as they are created to be easy to learn, but this one isn't an IAL. Mithridates 18:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, agree with Mithridates. Roadmr (t|c) 18:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep for now, per Mithridates. Ithkuil is certainly well-known in the conlanger community...but the article could certainly use additional citations and demonstration of that. --Miskwito 19:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Appears to lack multiple independent coverages in independent and reliable sources. Gets a few thousand Google hits, but I would like to see several articles in refereed scientific or more speficically linguistic journals. Are "conlangers" hobbyists or linguistic scholars? Not intrinsically opposed to an article about a made up language with too many phonemes to be speakable, but the article has to have reliable sources to show it is notable and goes beyond things made up inside or outside school one day. Inkpaduta 21:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - lack of speakers is not really a reason for deletion as long as the language is notable (and the 67,000 unique ghits attest to its notability). -- Black Falcon 20:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - same reasons as everybody else. Sahmeditor 02:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - for the same reasons - and because of the interest in this page that I've observed in the Real World Cranialsodomy 06:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - I just noticed that there's a LOT more information about Ithkuil in other languages' Wikipedias, particularly German and Russian. If someone could translate some of that text, it would make this article significantly more weighty. Luvcraft 15:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – This is quite a famous constructed language. I agree that a line must be drawn beyond which "private conlangs" have to be removed, but Ithkuil certainly does not belong there. — N-true (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2009 (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.