Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sasxsek 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 delete. &mdash; Xezbeth 07:24, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sasxsek language
OK, I am finding that there are a shocking number of invented language articles on Wikipedia that are simply non-notable, ie: they are recent, original creations of the Wikipedians who posted them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a strict No original research policy, and Sasxsek language seems to be another one in violation of this. Googling shows that an overwheming number of hits to Sasxsek all lead back to Wikipedia--or one of its mirrors--as the original source. Wikipedia is not a platform for establishing the notability of anything. func (talk) 18:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. func (talk) 18:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Until notable or well known, Delete Celestianpower 18:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons above. Compare Ceqli and Slovio, which show authorship and for which Googling shows a certain noteworthiness outside the author's own web pages. -- Cam 19:17, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 21:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, personal conlang DopefishJustin (&#65381;&#8704;&#65381;) 21:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete all nonnotable conlangs! --Angr/undefined 05:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Almafeta 00:20, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. By the way, I have known about the language for several months, even though I have only a tangential interest in constructed languages.  That's notable enough for me.  Also I wonder about the justification for what appears as a kind of crusade against conlangs here. - Ar 19:09, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)
 * May I ask where you heard about this language, apart from Wikipedia, a Wikipedia mirror, or another source that credits or that ultimately leads back to Wikipedia? If you are perceiving some hostility, it is only because many conlang authors have been using Wikipedia to establish the notability of their brand new conlang creation. Wikipedia is here to report on verifiable subjects, and not to support original research. func (talk) 19:25, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Occasional browsing of some newsgroups or mailing lists. E.g., there has been quite a lot of discussion on the alt.language.artificial newsgroup. - Ar 14:31, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thank you for pointing this out to me, Ar. Googling for groups turns up 68 hits. Out of those, I couldn't find any where the creator of Sasxsek, Dana Nutter, wasn't involved in the thread. At the end of this page, we see a gentleman named Adam H. Kerman who states:
 * "Gosh: 18 entire posts about SASXSEK in the last three months, none of which are archived from your vanity froup. You sent the newgroup Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:40:29 GMT, after it was pointed out that no one was discussing your artificial language on Usenet and that you should post to alt.language.artificial. Your group hasn't been picked up beyond Easynew, Newsreaders, and Altopia which create 100% of the crap alt groups (and only a selection of the legitimate groups). Why are you here with another proposal for the same froup? You don't get to retrocharter your froup. If you want to make up for your earlier mistakes, then find some discussion for your topic. Go away."
 * And then there is this link,, where a "call to arms" has been sent out to save this very conlang. These 68 usenet postings convince me even more that this is a vanity posting to Wikipedia, and that this conlang has no currently notable currancy, ie: no one is speaking it or studying it in any serious way other than Dana Nutter him- or herself. func (talk) 16:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * As a conlanger myself, let me just say very strong Delete. Totally non-notable. Conlangers, don't spam Wikipedia with your languages (unless they truly are *notable*), it just makes the rest of us look bad. --Whimemsz 01:15, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kill all non-notable conlang articles. (Yes, I'm a conlanger too.) This isn't even a conlang article, just some silly person calling their list of phonemes a conlang again. Plus it's an auxlang, which means it's supposed to have a considerable number of actual speakers before it could be considered notable. May no such thing ever happen. Delete. - Cymydog Naakka 19:35, 14 Jun 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 .