Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingua Franca Nova (2 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. Even after discounting the last three "keep" opinions for not making arguments based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, there is no consensus about whether there are sufficient sources for this topic.  Sandstein  10:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lingua Franca Nova
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

For over 2 years: original research; based solely on self-published sources. Kaligelos (talk) 02:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2010 (U--Guido Crufio (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)TC)
 * Keep: You mean the inline citations come from websites and suchlike, but the article is referenced by published material about this language. Just out of curiosity, upon what do you base your charge of WP:NOR violation?   Ravenswing  06:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what published material are you basing this opinion on? Neither of the claimed sources in the "references" section has enough detail in the citations to be able to track down what they actually are. Are they books? Peer-reviewed journal articles? Any chance of ISBNs or other information to identify them? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: We've been through all this before. This is a well-respected proposed IAL, as a cursory review of constructed language sites and discussion groups, including Wikipedia's own "WikiProject Constructed languages", clearly demonstrate. It is nicely presented, complete, with inline references, links, etc. It does not proselytize. It has an ISO code. It has a couple of print mentions, and if it is primarily an internet phenomenon, well, welcome to the twenty-first century! Oh, I should mention that there are many translations, original works, and articles on its well-run Wikia site. Thank you! Cgboeree (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's all very well, but can you point to any significant coverage in independent reliable sources? And please, Cgboeree, could you let us know whether you have any conflict of interest here, such as, for example, being the creator of this language? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the original creator. Many others have contributed to it, some much more than I. I wasn't aware that I was not permitted to add my opinion. The last time someone went after the article, I was told that these votes aren't really votes, but rather a succinct way of indicating one's position. My apologies. Cgboeree (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I forget, you asked about the two articles: Contraste is a German left-wing newspaper. Invented Languages is a journal edited by Richard Harrison, who is a widely respected "auxlanger" (and not associated with LFN in any way). Cgboeree (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're perfectly entitled to express your opinion, but it's considered best practice to declare any personal interest in a subject, so thanks for doing so. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Indeed, this is definitely one of the best known, most appreciated and most active IALs of our times. The two references are okay, but I'm sure there must be more. If so, I'd suggest adding them. On a sidenote, this is of course no argument for deletion, but I do have the impression that the article is excessively long. BTW, only today I noticed that there is also a (much older, but completely obscure) project called Lingua Franca Nuova! Regards, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should split the article into separate pieces such as "Lingua Franca Nova phonology" and "Lingua Franca Nova grammar", just like the Esperanto articles? :-) Cgboeree (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (Jan: You can read more about Lingua Franca Nuova, if you like, at http://lfn.wikia.com/wiki/Lingua_Franca_Nuova and http://www.archive.org/stream/histoiredelalang00coutuoft#page/576/mode/2up page 372. I wrote to Arika Okrent about this: Originally, she mispelled the older LFN like the newer one! She graciously agreed to change it in the next edition of her book.) Cgboeree (talk)
 * Thank you for the link! It's incredible: when you think you've seen everything... :) As for splitting the article, mind, I was just giving my opinion. But indeed, it might be a good idea. IMO language descrptions shouldn't contain a complete grammar, word lists etc. Cheers, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  22:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can someone close this nomination to delete, please? The first nomination to delete had nine people against deletion and only one for deletion. (No, I didn't vote at all, although the nominator did accuse me of "sockpuppetry" - something I hadn't even heard of till then!) Since the consensus was clearly to keep the article, an administrator finally intervened with "keep" (and then changed it to "no consensus" after the original nominator personally appealed to him!). Now another person has nominated to delete. I would think that once is enough, wouldn't you? You have no idea how disheartening for honest contributors it is to go through this. Cgboeree (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I still don't see any independent reliable sources. It is claimed above that the sources in Contraste and Invented Languages are sufficient for notability, but neither of those seem to be stocked by anyone other than the obligatory national archives, so can hardly be claimed to be meet our requirements for verifiable reliable sourcing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * keep! I don't understand much of all this debate as english isn't my current language and I'm pretty bad in computer science. But I understand even less of the point of deleting such a beautiful and honest and so useful work of not only one passionate man by quite a lot now all over the world. Thank you for beeing cute! (Patrick Chevin) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.124.53.110 (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * keep! Pardonnez-moi d'écrire en français. La Lingua Franca Nova ne mérite pas cet ostracisme ou ce bannissement. Wikipedia se doit d'informer le public sur l'existence de cette langue remarquable tant par ses qualités que par sa vitalité. Son site Wikia est très documenté. Je ne comprends pas l'utilité d'une telle censure. D'autres langues construites à vocation internationale ont leur place dans Wikipedia, alors que leur vitalité est moindre. Sunido 09:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Of all the constructed languages that exist, Lingua Franca Nova shows the most potential to become a truly universal language. It is easy to read and understand and after a relatively short time it is possible to actually speak the language. Esperanto has achieved a degree of success which is well documented, but LFN is easier to learn and a more effective means of communication. At a time when the European Community is debating the possibility of using one common language, LFN is certainly a language that should seriously be considered. I would have thought that far from shunning the language, Wikipedia would have realised the potential of LFN and would have supported it wholeheartedly. LFN continues to grow and it is important that it has as many opportunities to reach a world audience as possible, the sort of exposure that Wikipedia is capable of providing. Who knows in the future if LFN should continue to progress as it has and becomes a truly international language, Wikipedia could quite rightly claim to have assisted in making this happen. --Guido Crufio (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (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.