Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joicean

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 04:53, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Joicean
Conlang vanity page, apparently written by its creator. Self-promotion, vanity, and unverifiable. Delete. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 18:27, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The usual mix of vanity and hoax, delete --fvw *  18:33, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
 * Delete - unverifiable - David Gerard 18:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hasn't this been here before? Or are there hundreds of these 'languages'? Xezbeth  18:35, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of them. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 18:39, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thousands, I would venture to say. I spent a good chunk of yesterday working on mine (not a simple English derivative), but these sorts of personal projects are not encyclopedic. Delete. &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 19:23, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Xuquhu, errr, Delete. hoax/vanity. Rje 20:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Josh Cherry 23:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as, uhm, nn vanity hobby, original research, nonsense, hoax. Wyss 03:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, as Livajo said. Lacrimosus 06:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rje, except Delete is actually Xuqquhhu. Jayjg |  (Talk)  18:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.