Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ku (fictional language)


 * 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 and redirect to The Interpreter. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ku (fictional language)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I just don't think this topic deserves a stand-alone article. A lot of what is on the article can be merged to The Interpreter without problem. Also, a lot of this article is simply taken from the Los Angeles Times article and pasted onto here. I'm not really sure this article passes WP:GNG, I'd argue that it's an unnecessary content fork, and that it fails WP:NOTPLOT. Advise me if I'm wrong on some points on this nomination, but I just feel that this should be either deleted or merged. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Film,  and Africa. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge with The Interpreter per OP's nom. TheManInTheBlackHat   (Talk)  20:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete, as a WP:COPYVIO of this page. Otherwise not notable outside of the film, so a merge/redirect would have been fine. SailingInABathTub 🛁 03:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to The Interpreter, where the basics are already covered. As mentioned above, the fictional language does not not demonstrate any kind of notability separate from the film itself where a split into a separate article would make sense. That one source from the LA Times should probably be moved over to main article on the movie, but the other listed source does not appear to be significant coverage from a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect and revdel. The page itself is entirely a copyright violation, and it has been since its very first version in 2006. For this reason, the page history should be revision-deleted (and I've listed it on WP:CP). Because basically all of the text is a copyright violation, a merge cannot reasonably take place. However, a redirect to The Interpreter makes sense, since the language is mentioned there. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect as merge is impossible due to copyright violations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:09, 10 January 2023 (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.