Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of common phrases in constructed languages


 * 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. This doesn't belong here. Mackensen (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

List of common phrases in constructed languages


Article was created to parallel list of common phrases in various languages, which has been nominated for deletion twice. After the most recent nomination, that page's scope has changed to linguistic (genetic) comparison (although this is a dubious venture in itself) since Wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals or user and travel guides. Constructed languages cannot be meaningfully compared in the same way since they have no natural genetic history. The page also lacks cited sources, making the page a mix of unverified material and/or original research. Introductory guides to the constructed languages presented is better suited in their respective articles not in a list of 10-15 "phrases" (most of which are actually just words). Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree with all of the above reasons. This is an article we should have. --- RockMFR 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * All of them? So you're saying that Wikipedia is a place for instruction guides, that this page has nothing to do with the other page, that both articles are heavily sourced, and that constructed languages have genetic relationships?  Or are you just exagerating?  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If I'm ever on Star Trek, I can consult this article and speak eight phrases to the Kling-Ons. Wavy G 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, random collection of phrases. Better for Wiktionary? Punkmorten 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete random and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete article does not cite reliable sources - not opposed to keeping iff they're added. WilyD 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. A valuable sampler, and a companion to the list of common phrases in various languages.  Claims that this belong in a dictionary or contains "how to" information strike me as fairly spurious; never seen a dictionary with this kind of information.  - Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A collection of how-to guides arbitrarily compiled into a single article. -- Alan McBeth 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * [[image:Symbol keep vote.svg|17px]] Keep. Though the nominator has a point, the article could be edited to group the languages based on what languages they are modelled on. (and how's that for a piece of broken English huh) -- N eo fe lis N eb ul osa (моє обговорення)  21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - random junk. MrHarman 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The languages can be grouped into international auxiliary languages and fictional languages, and compared. Constructed languages are a controversial minority interest, and there is a risk that the article could end up being deleted for that reason. I agree that this article should be made more encylopedic. Matt 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Matt. Unique attempts at doing somethinga little different should be encouraged.DGG 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that called original research? This sort of thing would be more appropriate at Wiktionary.  Despite Smerdis' claim to the contrary, there are dictionaries that do translate phrases.  They're called phrasebooks.  Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I may not be a real member of wikipedia, but I do know that some of these are valuable. For example, Lojban has an ISO code.71.107.18.245 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminant collection of information. As the nominator says this kind of information is better presented in articles on the individual languages (or closely related groups of them).  Eluchil404 09:19, 6 December 2006 (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.