Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sangi


 * 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. Sr13 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sangi

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Made-up language, this article is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Someguy1221 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not an article, it's a textbook. Delete as per the creator's comment on the talk page saying that it's never been exposed outside the creators' minds. Thus, no reliable sources are possible. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The articles regarding the Talossan language and other constructed languages of that nature only have a reliable source of information because the information was placed on a website before its creation. The group of individuals who use Sangi have no knowledge on website creation, therefore a suitable online source does not exist. No written work has been on the language either. Wikim3 21:15, 8 June 2007


 * Comment. Actually, even if this language had its own website, it would still fail the notability requirements, which require independent sources.  Tolossan is at least the official language of a country, even if it's a teeny tiny one.  Someguy1221 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just read the notability requirements page and you do have a point. I've realised that this page would come over as an advertisement or a self-publicity page. This page was created in order to tell people about Sangi, but with no outside research done into it, no person outside the project could write this article. Wikim3 21:29, 8 June 2007


 * Delete This language should have a nice website, but not a wikipedia entry, at least not yet. Capmango 21:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Nothing verifiable or attributable.  To the author, there are wikis out there that are less stringent about the requirement for reliable sources.  I believe that langmaker.com and wikia are two. - Aagtbdfoua 22:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per article author's comment of 21:29, 8 June 2007, above. Deor 00:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment ...created for private use by a small number of individuals in North Yorkshire... == NN ~ Infrangible 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 01:43, 9 June 2007 (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.