Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language Creation Society


 * 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. Ignoring a WP:COI editor's comments, unanimous agreement to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Language Creation Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

All sources are either blogs or related to conlang.org, the main website to Language Creation Society (LCS) per WP:SPAM promotion. Also, no news worthy articles have shown up on Google search. Obviously an attempt to advertise per WP:NOTADVERTISING. JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

That the whole thing is just a bunch of former UC Berkeley students is plain nonsense; the LCS may well have originated there (any organisation has to originate somewhere, doesn't it?), but at present it has members all over the world, and the current president is a Frenchman living in the Netherlands. Merging this article into Dothraki language is not an option; even if Dothraki is probably the LCS main achievement, its activity reaches much further than that (including the biannual Language Creation Conferences, also referred to in quite a number of articles). At last, I'm sorry to mention this again, but I would appreciate it very much if Wikipedians could refrain from using terms like "advertising" and "spam" for subjects they consider obscure or otherwise don't care for. Personally, I don't see how this article is promotional in any way (and mind, as an admin on WP:NL I've deleted tons of promo stuff myself), but if somebody thinks otherwise, this can simply be remedied by rewriting a few sentences. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: IJzeren Jan (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.
 * I can't comment on the notability, and the tone is indeed slightly promotional, but the article does seem to list at least one independent source. This interview says it's a longer version of something originally published in eo:La Usona Esperantisto. I've also checked the other independent ref but this doesn't seem to mention the society at all. Uanfala (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Dothraki language (prefer delete): The only thing they've done that's noteworthy is refer the Game of Thrones producers to the guy who created that language. Everything else, and I mean everything else appears to be fluff of no consequence. I prefer delete because their only connection to Dothraki is that referral (to someone who I believe was a board member), rather than actually creating the language. With all due respect, this is a UC Berkeley student group that the creators kept doing after they graduated. That's not notable. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 15:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. First of all, let's point out once again that notability is not a hard rule, and the corresponding page make it clear that the only thing that really matters is significant coverage in significant sources. More importantly, however, let's not forget that notability is relative. I am ready to believe that for people involved in subjects like mathematics, religion, politics or the Twilight series, the whole subject of language creation may seem futile, and I will certainly not dispute that in terms of notability the LCS as a subject cannot compete with Pythagoras, Edward Cullen or Kim Jung-Un. But within the field of constructed languages, the LCS is not only significant, it's crucial. Frankly, I've no idea where the assertion comes from that there are "no news worthy articles". There's a fairly long list of articles in the press about the LCS or at least mentioning it, and I could start giving links, but one might just as well have a look here. On Google Books and Google Scholar you can find numerous references to the LCS too, also in the scientific press, and many of these occurrences are far from trivial and completely unrelated to Dothraki. It may be true that most of the references used in the article are essentially primary sources, but on the other hand, I'd say we're way beyond the stage that articles are supposed to provide lists of references with the sole purpose of proving that the subject is noteworthy.

BTW, you are mistaken about Dothraki. It is not true that the creator of Dothraki accidentally became president of the LCS at some point, the language was in fact commissioned to the LCS, and via the LCS to David Peterson. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  19:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * As you appear to be a member of the LCS board of directors, I can understand your frustration, but let's try to stay objective here. Virtually everything dealing with LCS out there is cursory mentions—clearly not rising to the level of "significant coverage" required by our notability guidelines. That little that might be more substantial appears to be in dealing with Dothraki. The creation conferences themselves aren't independently notable, and their existence doesn't convey notability onto the organization itself. For an interest group, even a niche one, created in the last two decades that by its very nature has largely resided in newsgroups and bulletin boards, 164 ghits is a bad sign. Reviewing these demonstrates that the sole newsworthy event touching on the LCS is that the creator of Dothraki is one of its founders, and is a former president. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * How does me being a member of the LCS invalidate my arguments? Unless I'm mistaken, an AfD is not a vote, it's all about reasonable, policy-based arguments, so making the COI point is pretty much using an ad hominem argument. Besides, anybody's personal involvement in a subject is likely to mean that this person knows what he is talking about, isn't it? For your information, I have been spending most of my life reading and writing about constructed languages and I have also been working on the corresponding section on this wiki for twelve years now, including maintaining P:CL virtually on my own (long before the LCS ever existed, and even much longer before I became a member). Therefore, when a deletion discussion about a related subject comes up, I feel fully entitled to participate. Mind you, I never participate in discussions about fields I'm not knowledgeable about. So please keep it civil and do not address me like some frustrated 17 years old. I have no personal interest whatsoever in preserving this article, and if there's anything that I find frustrating, it's rather the fact that these discussion are often dominated by people who know a lot about policy, but little or nothing about the subject itself.


 * Delete per nominator unless someone can demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2016 (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.