Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ithkuil (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. There are multiple claims to notability made on behalf of this topic; including coverage in multiple reliable sources, an independent award and stature comparable to notable topics of a similar nature. While these in themselves are not sufficient to keep the article according to Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, they have not been refuted decisively by editors favouring deletion. As such, recourse to the last resort of deleting this content is inappropriate, and the status quo holds. Skomorokh, barbarian  15:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Ithkuil
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Ithkuil is a constructed language which is apparently only featured in a single Russian language magazine and has a brief mention in an LA Times article. Nearly every relevant hit for "Ithkuil" on Google is from a Wikipedia clone or a conlanger blog or forum, mostly the former. In addition, the possible advantages section is entirely speculation. The article might be well formatted, and Ithkuil is popular in some parts of the conlanging community, but it's not notable anywhere outside of it. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The first sentence of your nomination statement establishes the language's notability. Should I assume, by the way, that you would also favor the deletion of Ilaksh, the successor to Ithkuil? -- Soap Talk/Contributions 02:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I would, if I didn't find nominating articles for deletion so confusing; if Ithkuil goes then I will ask whatever administrator is in charge of this process to put Ilakash through the same rigors. To address your first point, two mentions, one of which is just in passing and the other on a web site in Russian, does not make something at all notable. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) There is no particular "administrator in charge of this process". There are, however, lots of editors (admin or otherwise) who would be glad to help you with other AfDs you wish to open. (2) The fact that a site is in Russian has no bearing on whether it can be used to help establish notability. Lady  of  Shalott  00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis of the material presented at the first AfD, including the long  sourced articles on the deWP and ruWP .    DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only citations used on the German and Russian Wikipedias that aren't present on this one are Livejournal posts and two fan sites. Are we allowed to use those citations here, and if not, is it appropriate to refer to the De and Ru wikis? I'd also like to point out that some of the contributors to this article are language enthusiasts who speak many languages and it is possible that they also created the pages for this language on the other wikis, which means that referring to them to indicate notability isn't valid. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Strictly, any Wikipedia articles should not be used to indicate notability as they are publicly edited. (Blogs and forum posts are similarly discountable.) They may be used as extra backup to reliable third party sources, and as links for further information. As to the article in question, I've not had time yet to investigate the plethora of ghits. Maybe tomorrow night (if a retirement do for a colleague doesn't last too long...) Peridon (talk) 19:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The Russian magazine gives it a thorough coverage, and, let's be honest, no one pays attention to the "multiple" part of the general notability criterion. Wiwaxia (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ithkuil is only talked about in two paragraphs of the article and the word "Ithkuil" only appears four times, twice in the text itself and twice in a citation which is a link to the creator's website. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A Quijada interview in the same magazine: http://offline.computerra.ru/2009/17/. Plus, he’s been a guest speaker at an MIT conference on conlangs, and the Los Angeles Times included a brief quote. Go do your homework, dear pseudonymous user. Ramir (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Correction: Quijada spoke twice at the Language Creation Conference, both times at Berkeley. I was the organizer of both, and can attest in my official capacity that Ithkuil is one of the best and most well known conlangs in existence today. Strong keep. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 16:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Would some more people who aren't heavy contributors to the article or members of the conlang community please weigh in on this topic. KRUSHER DESTROYER (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there should be some more people who are impartial to the topic. It seems that for every one outsider who votes there are two contributors or hobbyists themselves who come in and agree with each other without reading what anyone else has said. Hermione is a dude (talk) 02:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence to support these claims about those who have made comments in favor of keeping the article. (My own comment below does lack detail, but in fact I read both AfDs twice and thought deeply about the overall situation before writing it; I saw no need to be more specific about the objective arguments, and saw only acrimony to be had from being more specific about the non-objective arguments.  So simplicity of a comment does not, in itself, reliably signify lack of study.)
 * If anyone here reading this hasn't gone back to look at the earlier AfD, BTW, I highly recommend doing so. --Pi zero (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The notability is attested by a couple of articles and a couple of talks at a barely notable conference. Testimonies without substantial written sources are not accepted, sorry. Besides, most of the article is based on primary sources. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete After going through the first 10 pages on our favourite search engine, I decided that most (if not all) of the relevant ghits were either clones, forums or other self-editable things. (Ithkuil is also the name used by the inhabitants of a remote planet somewhere.) I did find one interesting thing - the Articles for Deletion result for this conlang on Indopedia. Yes, I am very well aware that what they do should not influence what we do. However, some of the posters of 'deletes' (there was only one 'keep') claimed to be conlangers - and found this one non-notable. This is not the reason for my decision. I know it is hearsay, and Perry Mason would never base a defence on it..... I !vote delete because of other factors. I quote the article: "No person is hitherto known to be able to speak Ithkuil fluently; Quijada, for one, does not." If no-one can speak it fluently - and I doubt that many can speak it at all - what is the point? I too have designed (more correctly started to...) a language with its own script. I gave up because I decided it was going to be useless. (And I had a load of homework.) More important is the lack of suitable references. Why invent this stuff when existing languages seem to work? And they can be quite concise - as I recall, Yoruba has a single word for 'expecting the return of a deceased ancestor'. (I am open to correction by an expert.) Peridon (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that conlangs never meant to be spoken per se are intrinsically worthless. Consider by contrast thought experiments. Is What Mary didn't know worthless? How about Wilkins' philosophical language? Ithkuil is a philosophical language like Wilkins'; it's intended as an experiment, not to be spoken widely, and evaluating it on the latter criterion is an absurdity. As for "why invent this stuff at all", I refer you to Apologia pro imaginatione and the conlang manifesto. Just because you don't want to spend your time on it, doesn't mean it's insignificant. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am saying that this one appears to me to be particularly unnotable. As to Wilkins, "Jorge Luis Borges wrote a critique of Wilkins' philosophical language", "In The Search for the Perfect Language, Umberto Eco catches Wilkins himself making this kind of mistake" - notability established. And Mary? A thought experiment by a notable philosopher, and "Mary's Room is a thought experiment that has triggered much debate, and is responsible for much creative thought in the field. Jackson, whether his experiment be accepted or refuted, should be credited with coming up with a brilliant experiment that helped stimulate the minds of many philosophers.". (Quotes from relevant Wikipedia articles.) In my opinion, Quijada is, like his possible namesake, tilting against windmills, but without even the notoriety raised by a bunch of angry millers. Peridon (talk) 10:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looked at the Apologia. Sorry, can't see relevance. It appears to be someone unconnected with this basing an explanation of why he does something on biblical texts. That's his life. OK. As to the manifesto, I'm not objecting to conlangs as such. Some are notable, such as the Tolkien ones. This one is described by people identifying as conlangers as non-notable - and I can't find anything to contradict them. Finally, a comment about the language rather than the article, as someone concerned with both writing and text manipulation, I can't see why a language intended to speed up thought has to be written in such a difficult to write script, and with parts of words implicit rather than explicit. That is leaving things open to the sort of problems that most (if not all) of the Afroasiatic languages have when it comes to old texts. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Apologia is relevant to answer your previous question about why people would make languages "when existing languages seem to work", not to Ithkuil in particular. If you understood it as having something to do with biblical texts, you misunderstood it significantly. He is merely taking a religious metaphor of 'creation'.
 * In any case, I wonder what actual conlangers claim it's non-notable. I'd be quite surprised if you found anyone e.g. on the CONLANG mailing list who would agree with that. Are the aforementioned conlangers members of the community at all? Lacking knowledge of what is notable within conlanging is the only explanation I can think of for this claim. (Mind, this isn't intended as an insult to said people; there are certainly plenty of actual conlangers who are completely unaware of the existence of a community thereof, and therefore unaware of anything but a sliver that happens to hit mainstream press that they read, or be incorporated in a book/show they like, like Klingon or Quenya.)
 * As for the complexity of the script, it's not intended to be fast to write, but rather extremely information-dense to read. Whether that's a good tack to go on "speeding up thought" is something to ask JQ. TTBOMK, that was not one directly of his intended goals, but rather how the Russian journalist who wrote two articles on it decided to spin it. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see any weakening of the objective reasons to keep from the previous AfD, nor any strengthening of objective arguments against.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I fully agree with Pi zero.  Johan G (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that a lack of speakers shouldn't be the only reason an article about a constructed language should be deleted, but unlike some of the other thought experiments Sai Emrys has mentioned, Ithkuil hasn't been the topic of discussion anywhere outside of a hobbyist's convention and two magazine articles (which, if I am reading Sai Emrys right, were written by the same person). The other defenses brought up in the original AfD have been debunked as well: the GHits are meaningless and the fact that articles exist on the other wikis isn't important. Sai Emrys is attempting to link the statement "Ithkuil is not notable" with "all constructed language articles should be deleted". Conlanging is a legitimate and notable hobby, but not every person's project should get its own article as soon as someone not involved in the hobby mentions it. The difference between the notability of Klingon and of Ithkuil is huge, and saying that one should remain because of the other is like defending the article of an actor whose most prominent role was two lines in a B-movie because Bruce Willis has one, too. Hermione is a dude (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said that Ithkuil should remain because of Klingon? My position, at least, is that Ithkuil is among the top most notable conlangs. (I also take issue with your characterization of the LCC as a "hobbyist convention", but I think that's besides the point...) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 02:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence of this position in the top ratings that we can see? Peridon (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You could always ask on CONLANG. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 22:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CONLANG is, IIRC, a mailing list, and has the same problem regarding citeability as forums and blogs do. Also, outright asking them to say whether it is or not notable might constitute Original Research. Hermione is a dude (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I feel that opinions are getting the better of us. I just want to see evidence that will convince me - and I've not seen any yet. Peridon (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Citeability and original research would be concerns if it were proposed to incorporate into the article the results of a question asked on CONLANG. They don't limit what we can do when pursuing an AfD discussion.  We can do google searches, analyze the results, and draw conclusions from our analysis.  If we want to know what the conlanger on the street thinks about Ithkuil, it's well within our purview to just step out on the street and ask them.  --Pi zero (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Some more points that attest to the notability of Ithkuil. Ithkuil was winner of the 2008 Smiley Award, the most notable and prestigious award handed out to conlangs. Only languages that are widely recognized as masterpieces within the conlang community seem to be handed this award. Also, Ithkuil is one of the languages mentioned in the appendix to Anika Okrent's In the World of Invented Languages. The majority of these are languages so old that basically no one would challenge their notability. Among the more recent, Internet-age conlangs, Okrent only lists "especially noteworthy or well-developed ones – languages that most of the highly regarded conlangers will have heard of". She is not indiscriminate in her inclusion of conlangs on this list. The presence or absence of a conlang of Okrent's list is an objective criterion. If we ever develop a notability guideline for constructed languages, both of these are likely to be accepted as criteria. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Wiwaxia's comments. Also: what's this? I see he added another source to the Ithkuil article?! Coolness! Bennett Chronister (talk) 07:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One more comment. Ithkuil was earlier deleted, then a new article was created by a different person who was unaware of the previous creation and deletion. See this page for the first deletion vote. The fact that two different people, neither of whom are John Quijada, thought this article worthy of creation attests to Ithkuil's notability. The first deletion debate was closed as delete by counting votes (no exclamation point before the word "votes" here), completely ignoring Trebor's point about its coverage in independent sources. Also, it was nominated for deletion by Jar Jar Binks, a known troublemaker on the Zompist.com bulletin board. I don't know who this KRUSHER DESTROYER guy is, or what his motives are in arguing zealously for Ithkuil's deletion, so I'm not going to assume bad faith about him, but the earlier deletion nomination seemed to be bad-faith. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC) (who really should go to bed now)
 * Why bother mentioning the bad faith-ness of the previous nomination if not to cast the current one in a bad light? What does Jar Jar Binks' social status on a forum have to do with anything? Also, were you joking about that Smiley Award thing? Hermione is a dude (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I found the information in this article relevant and inspiring to things I think about and work with. Jikybebna (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Update: On the other hand, I wouldn’t mind if Ithkuil and Ilaksh merged. Jikybebna (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, particularly Wiwaxia. A merge might not be out of line, if Ithkuil and Ilaksh are related closely, but the article as it stands is sourced and neutral. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Smiley Award The Smiley Award is awarded by one person on a set of criteria that includes "The winner will be a language that, for one reason or another, makes me smile.". This seems to me to be an award that doesn't confer any particular significance other than that David J. Peterson has decided to give it. Does this not come near, if not actually into, the category that blogs, forums and so on come into as concerns notability? Peterson himself "has attempted to create a phonetic transcription system for signing that is ASCII-friendly known as the Sign Language International Phonetic Alphabet (SLIPA)." Quoted from Sign language. But does he come into the rarified category of award givers that includes the Queen of the UK and (presumably - I'm not sure how the American honours system works) the President of the USA? (And I presume both of them have committees, panels and political groups behind their awards...) Peridon (talk) 21:21, 11 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.