Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanica language

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 6 clear "delete" votes, 4 "keep" votes (one of whom based his/her vote on an invalid logical premise), 5 "merge" votes and 3 "abstain" votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now.

Noting that there is an overwhelming majority that does not believe that this should remain as a stand-alone article and noting that redirects to not necessarily destroy history, I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor and make the article into a redirect to Interlingua. I personally do not see any content that should be merged but if anyone else does, please pull it from the history. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Romanica language
Constructed language similar to Interlingua which the article acknowledges has "far fewer speakers" than Interlingua, which is itself hardly taking the world by storm. The "Academia pro Lingua Romanica", which designed the language, has a homepage on GeoCities and gets 107 Google hits. Googling for Romanica and language gets 13,200 hits, but most of it seems to be words in other languages and other things with the same name. "Romanica language" gets 155 hits, much of it Wikipedia-related. Googling for Romanica and Interlingua gets 1,650, much of which is on Wikipedia or not related. Maybe this is a notable conlang but it doesn't look like it to me. DopefishJustin (&#12539;&#8704;&#12539;) 00:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) * Strong Keep, since this is a language being constructed and which has speakers. It is also a fairly well-written article. As for the pages in other languages, many of them may possibly be in the Romanica language or in other countries where the language is spoken more. &#1090;&#601; z&#1108; &#1090;&#1110; 21:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend towards the opinion that any serious constructed language is notable given the lot of work involved. However, I'm not going to vote on this one until a linguist looks at it and tells me if it's really different from existing languages. It could be simple research placed on Geo because they couldn't afford a host of their own. No vote. Radiant! 09:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * The list of Romanica words at Wiktionary, the WikiProject Romanica at Wiktionary, and finally the discussion of Romanica and Ekspreso in the Wiktionary Beer Parlour may help everyone to form their decisions. Uncle G 16:59, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
 * Keep all languages are notable (except some esoteric programming languages). Grue 19:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And the difference between esoteric programming languages and esoteric invented languages being? No vote Denni &#9775; 01:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
 * Keep - unless you want to invalidate the +200 Wiktionary entries Silvermane 22:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's more like 600. And I pointed to the Beer Parlour discussion in part to point out that at least one person views the situation as the Romanica people setting up a WikiProject at Wiktionary in order to simply use Wiktionary as a hosting service (which we disallow for Wikipedia).  Uncle G 13:36, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
 * No vote - surely minor conlangs qualify as "original research"? -Sean Curtin 03:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Not notable, and few people (if any) actually use it.  -Sean Curtin 01:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - unremarkable conlang - somewhere between original research, self promotion, and vanity. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep here despite the fact that I strongly advocate deleting all its entries at Wiktionary. People need to know what it is so they can come to their own conclusion about its validity in the constrained environment of a single article.  At the same time it does not need a lot of Wiktionary entries which would effectively legitimize its status as a language. Eclecticology 18:39, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see evidence that this language is spoken in any countries, or indeed that it is spoken at all. There's scant evidence that it is even written by more than a handful of people.  Contrast this with Esperanto.  There is plenty of evidence that Esperanto is both written and spoken, with societies of speakers in many countries; web pages, dictionaries, and real books written and published in the language; U.N. recognition; moves to make it the official language of various places; and the sorts of bleed-through that are exemplified at Esperanto in English-language media.  There is none of this for Romanica.  I pointed at the WikiProject so that you would see the bare lists of electronic mail mailboxes therein and the cross-references to Yahoo! Groups! (which in their turn cross-reference back to Wiktionary), and notice how incestuous this is.  This has all the appearance of Wiktionary and Wikipedia being used as free hosting services for a language that no-one has ever spoken, and that only one person has ever written significant amounts in. Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotable original research and vanity. Honestly, between Westcountry Brythonic, Ivernic language, Romanica language, and Neo-Gaelic language (which hasn't been nominated for deletion yet but probably will be soon), it seems Wikipedia is experiencing a rash of langcruft. --Angr 12:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Does a set of articles with creation dates that span a period of two years constitute a "rash"? Or is it in fact a rash of language deletion nominations that Wikipedia is experiencing? &#9786; Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * Merge with Interlingua please. Evertype 12:02, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * That will be fun. Reading the Yahoo! Groups! discussions (as best I can, given that it's all in Romanica) it appears that the Interlinguistas and the Romanicanistas are having a Big Fight.  I wonder whether either language has a word for "handbag".  Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
 * No evidence yet presented that this invented language is in any significant use. Based on the evidence presented above, I am inclined to agree that this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia and Wiktionary as a hosting service while they invent it.  Delete as original research until and unless the language is discussed in some independent medium.  Rossami (talk) 23:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless independent verifiability that anyone else cares can be found - David Gerard 17:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Conlangs, unlike real languages, are not inherently notable - especially when the article itself acknowledges that it's basically a slightly edited Interlingua. Merge with Interlingua. - Mustafaa 23:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Interlingua. Bogdan | Talk 23:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed w/ Cyrius. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to be a section on the Intrlingua article. Changed vote.  &#1090;&#601; z&#1108; &#1090;&#1110;
 * Strong Keep If this is a small language that's just beginning, we should just say so. It is better to have this info here than not to have it. Zantastik 01:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.