Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kotava (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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Kotava
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be a made up constructed language. No independent reliable source proves notability. All sources are self-publications. No results on Google Scholar:. It was deleted on de-wiki (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10. Juli 2007) and es-wiki (es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Kotava). See also: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Kotava. Tosqueira (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The fact that Kotava has an ISO code should do the trick. I would also like to point out that deletion in another wikipedia project should by no means be treated as an argument for deletion here, neither should deletion three years ago be treated as an argument to delete something now (things can have changed, like, in this case, the ISO code). For your information, Tosqueira, "made up" is in itself not an argument for deletion. Just like Shakespeare wrote made-up sonnets and Spielberg created made-up movies, some people create made-up languages. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  12:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It needs independent reliable sources. If no one else wrote about it, it fails notability because it has not received significant coverage in in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I couldn't find anything on Google Scholar. If no academic wrote anything about it (other than the one who invented) I believe it is not notable. Don't compare Shakespeare or Spielberg to an WP:OR. Tosqueira (talk) 12:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR refers to an article, not to a subject. What you call "made up" refers to the subject. Shakespeare's sonnets, Beethoven's symphonies and Spielberg's movies are equally "made up" as a constructed language. Esperanto and Quenya are also made up (the latter even in school, I believe). So? Does that make them unnotable as well? Look, personally I'm far from enthousiastic about Kotava and the way it's promoted by its followers. But the fact that it does have an ISO code makes it notable enough for inclusion - that's one of the very few things everybody agreed about during previous discussions about the notability of constructed languages. I'd also like to add that the term "made up" strikes me a slightly offensive. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  13:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Shakespeare's sonnets, Beethoven's symphonies and Spielberg's movies are equally "made up", but they are notable because they have enough independent reliable sources. If there's no independent media coverage, or at least independent academic coverage, it means that there is no independent source = no notability. Tosqueira (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically you admit that the statement in the nomination that it was made up was pointless. Can we stop discussing it, then?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of reliable sources and lack of notability. While deletion on other wikis doesn't necessarily mean much, the fact that it didn't pass AFD here in 2005 is quite telling... since our standards have tightened up enormously since 2005, there are few if any articles that would have failed our standards then but match them now.  In any case, no reliable sources = no article. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: according to WP:PROBLEM, lack of reliable sources is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. Besides, this is a reference as good as a reference can get. I don't understand your last argument. In fact you are saying: Because the article was deleted back in 2005, it should be deleted now as well. If so, does that mean that all those comments used in AFD discussions of the type "As for now, the subject lacks notability, but by all means try again once something changes" are to be disregarded in the future? For the record, you may have noticed that I "voted" delete in that discussion. In this case, I believe there is reason enough to vote differently now. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  15:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sometimes an unsourced article can be saved by scouring for sources, but this isn't the case here. There's been plenty of time to fix this up, and it hasn't happened.  This is as good as this article is going to get, and it's still unacceptable.  And yes, Wikipedia is collectively getting tired of desperate attempts to keep terrible articles under the promise, pleading, and pinky-swearing to find sources and fix it up real good, real soon... which 99.999% of the time doesn't happen and the article just gets deleted a few weeks later anyway. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent reliable sources -> no notability -> no article. If an ISO represents a presumption of notability, I could see holding off for reliable sources to appear, but I'm not aware of a policy or guideline that asserts that for constructed languages, or any consensus decision on it at all.  Is there one? gnfnrf (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONLANG. Since every natural language with an ISO code - even languages with no speakers (anymore) - are considered notable enough for an article, the same would also go for constructed languages. Mind, there aren't that many of those at all. See ISO, SIL, and BCP language codes for constructed languages. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. There is a whole lot of discussion and not much consensus there.  Perhaps there's one spot where everyone comes together, but I didn't see it, plus the whole thing pretty clearly failed to come up with guidelines.  However, it did get me interested in what the ISO codes actually mean, and now I'm puzzled.  ISO 639-3 was published in 2007.  That discussion was in 2005.  How can assertions about notability implied from ISO language codes apply to ISO 639-3?  Particularly since, as I have now learned (and please correct me if this is incorrect) unlike ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2, which attempt to catalog major languages, "ISO 639-3:2007 attempts to provide as complete an enumeration of languages as possible, including living, extinct, ancient and constructed languages, whether major or minor, written or unwritten. As a result, ISO 639-3:2007 deals with a very large number of lesser-known languages." (quoted from ).  That, to me, sounds like a denial of any assertion of notability by assigning an ISO 639-3 code.  And in the absence of an active policy or guideline stating otherwise, I don't see it helping here.
 * As for natural languages with no speakers being notable, my hope is that they pass the general notability guidelines in that they are the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable third party sources, regardless of the number of speakers. And if Kotava had that, I'd be voting keep, regardless of the number of speakers. gnfnrf (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ISO 639-3 was around also before 2007. It included a fairly small number of languages that didn't have an ISO 639-2 code. As far as I can remember, it was pretty messy and mostly based on discussions on the Linguist list. In 2007 a new list was compiled, which didn't include a few that were on the list before and did include a few others. But the list is still fairly small. As for the "very large number of lesser-known languages": I really don't know how that will be achieved. The requirements are pretty high when it comes to printed publications in the language and that kind of stuff. It is fairly biased against fictional/artistic languages in favour of auxlangs. Besides, how do we define a language? How complete must a language be to be "language" enough for an ISO code? The number of constructed languages with a dictionary of over, say, 50000 entries is very, very small. So, I honestly don't know how Kotava got its ISO code, but the very fact alone proves that there is must be more than just one out of a very large number of lesser-known languages. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  22:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ISO 639-3 was approved in 2007. It has existed in some form for a long time--it's basically the Ethnologue. There's bunches and bunches of languages in there that aren't in ISO 639-2, and they've retired several codes since ISO 639-3 became a standard because it turns out the languages didn't exist. Kotava got its code because someone submitted the paperwork for it; see for the associated paperwork. I don't think it having an ISO 639-3 code proves much beside the fact that someone was willing to ask for one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete; all ISO 639-2 language are notable because the LoC demands that some library hold 50 items in that language before adding it to ISO 639-2. An ISO 639-3 listing doesn't hurt notability, but it's at best a marginal notice, that need to be backed up by larger notices.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2008 (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.