Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonja Elen Kisa

 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 Keep

Non-notable translator. Wikipedian (User:Sonjaaa). Could be vanity, though as the page history seems to have disappeared, I'm not sure. Ambi 06:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutral vote: not a vanity article (see its talk page), but as I believe her only notable feat is creating Toki Pona I am not certain this merits Wikipedia inclusion. [[User_talk:Anárion|&#1040;&#1055;&#1040;&#x0301;&#1044;&#1030;&#1054;&#1055;]] 10:14, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to Redirect to Toki Pona, and include a short note on her there. [[User_talk:Anárion|&#1040;&#1085;&#1072;&#769;&#1088;&#1099;&#1105;&#1085;]] 22:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral vote: Of course, I'm staying out of this. I have to say it's not a vanity article, since another Wikipedian created the article about me, long before I even knew what the Wikipedia was! The only real reason for this article to exist is because people were linking to it from Toki Pona. I'd say compare to other authors of small-to-medium constructed languages James Cooke Brown, Kenneth Searight, Mark Hucko, Mark Rosenfelder, John Quijada, etc.--Sonjaaa 12:14, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I'd say that those whose only encyclopedic worthiness is as inventors of conlangs should be mentioned in those conlang articles (if they exist) or on user pages.  This is the same as someone who is only famous for dating a celebrity -- the information is on the celebrity's page.  I have my own feelings about conlangs, but that's not what we're voting on, here. Geogre 12:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable (created a notable langauge), 1,270 google hits, likely famous in a small circle (linguistics), wikipedia is not paper, article is extensible. Kim Bruning 14:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Of these, only 352 are real, the rest is google "ghosts". Of them, majority is wikipedia articles and mirrors. Mikkalai 23:16, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. Pjacobi 19:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: not sufficiently notable. Browsing through the 1140 google hits on "Sonja Elen Kisa" it looks like a substantial fraction (maybe half) are either at Wikipedia mirrors or web directories of people interested in Esperanto (e.g., ). I think a mention in the Toki Pona article is plenty. Wile E. Heresiarch 21:09, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep: she created a language which we now have a wikipedia article about and a wikipedia in. -- Ævar Arnfjör  [ Bjarmason]   21:31, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)
 * No vote, but i'd like to note that the text of Sonja Elen Kisa was taken from an old version (and then deleted from) User:Sonjaaa's  (see diff), but by User:Chuck SMITH. I think it would make sense if Sonja merged the page back into her userinfo. Pyrop 21:32, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's the other way around. Somebody had randomly deleted Sonja Elen Kisa in the past without proposing a vote (and they moved the content to my user page), and User:Chuck SMITH reverted that unilateral delete/edit by restoring Sonja Elen Kisa, and moving the Wikified bio out of my user page back into the main article. Therefore, the page was never really part of my userinfo. It had been developped by people (probably speakers of Toki Pona and/or Esperanto, in which circles I have notoriety) like any Wikipedia article is.--Sonjaaa 21:37, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: There are Wikipedia articles about Toki Pona in the English, German, Esperanto, Hebrew, Latin, Polish, Russian and Chinese Wikipedias. It seems to be a reasonably popular topic.--Sonjaaa 21:48, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Toki Pona, since this is the only valuable contribution. If she is wikipedian (User:Sonjaaa), she may put as much personal info as she wishes at her user page. Mikkalai 22:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW, google search seems to show that most toki pona hits (371 total, excluding about 6,000 "ghosts") are from wikipedia articles in different languages and in different mirrors. So much for fame. Mikkalai 22:27, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Non-voting comment: Sonja contacted me on my talk page and asked me to vote here, for the VfD poll on the article about herself. She got my name wrong (she called me Matt, and that's not my name), so this might still be a honest mistake and she might have intended to just contact a few of her accquaintances to ask them to vote here. It could however also be possible that this is a vanity poster who's now wikispamming all sorts of users to get her piece kept. I can't tell which it is. The quality and significance of her language probably is the one decisive factor and I cannot judge that. Just letting you know. Ropers 22:30, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, yeah my mistake. I was trying to contact user:Montrealais (Matt) to hear his opinion on the matter. I think I fell onto your talk page by accident through a discussion I read on Matt's page. I'm not wikispamming, and I clearly stated on the message intended for Matt that I encourage a vote either way, i.e. keep or delete. I must sincerely apologize for my message having fallen on your page by accident.--Sonjaaa 00:19, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it was the hilarious neo-nazi döner kebap discussion on Matt's page that sparked my curiosity and made me fall onto your page by accident, thinking I was still on Matt's. My apologies.--Sonjaaa 00:21, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * You mean this edit? Yea, that was me. First (and I should think last) time I have ever made a trolling edit. ('twas corrected w/in a mere 11 minutes btw. Not that I would advocate copycatting such antisocial acts, minor or no. Don't.) Ropers 15:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge with Redirect. Short stubs like this that mostly reproduce information from another article are annoying and in general it is better for setting an example that Wikipedians don't have their own articles unless very, very notable indeed. The language is important enough to deserve an article and more about its creator in that article is a reasonable expansion of the article. Jallan 01:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No vote (I'm never sure what should or should not be on the Wikipedia), but I do have to say that I am frequently surprised by the infamy and popularity of Toki Pona. Also, it seems to me that if the conlang has its own wikipedia, perhaps it has a higher status than any random conlang. --68.78.42.242 02:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Justin)
 * For the record, as far as I recall, Jimbo has stated that he did not support the creation of Toki Pona's Wikipedia (but once it existed wasn't keen to mess with other people's work). Being the author of yet another random conlang, that, as its author admits, may have a number of speakers that just scrapes into double figures, does not make one notable. Ambi 03:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable for creating Toki Pona, one of the more popular constructed languages. I may be biased however, having studied a little Toki Pona myself. Livajo 05:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge; it's too short and can always be split later. If there's a redirect then it can easily be referenced separately so it does no harm. In the meantime, Sonia, I suggest you personally (attempt to) invade Oregon with a force of several thousand and impose your language on the people there on pain of death.  Preferably also attempt to impose a mixture of wierdness anarchy and libertarianism which will make some fanatics see you as a great leader and others as a nutter leading to massive internet debates about the matter and articles in Newsweek.  This will allow us to expand the section easily, even if you fail, and solve the whole debate.  After that, we will be able separate the articles again very easily. Mozzerati 09:17, 2004 Sep 12 (UTC)
 * You rock, dude. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:32, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Hahahahahahha!!--Sonjaaa 19:35, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Would an invasion of Sealand or some similar object also be acceptable? Kim Bruning 23:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Importance is of interest to this case.--Sonjaaa 07:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not so. I guess you missed "This is a proposed policy" at the top of the page. As it stands, Importance is only an essay. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Marc Okrand, the creator of the Klingon language, has not been nominated as a candidate for deletion. JulieADriver 00:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Marc did more than that. It's only his article is poor. Mikkalai 01:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's why I suggested James Cooke Brown, Kenneth Searight, Mark Hucko, Mark Rosenfelder and John Quijada as better terms of comparison. I guess the outcome of this vote could set a precedent that affects all these articles?--Sonjaaa 03:10, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sure. All the more reason to delete this. Ambi 03:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the time I just translated the article from the Esperanto Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not paper. Also, the Toki Pona article is getting quite long...  --Chuck SMITH 14:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - How can we link to the language and not note the creator? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:10, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. A glance at the Toki Pona page shows a substantial article, created in April 2002, continuously edited by many contributors, some of them familiar names, and never suggested for VfD. So, judging as an utter outsider who never heard of Toki Pona or Sonja Elen Kisa until five minutes ago, it sure looks to me as if Toki Pona has a high enough degree of notability to justify an article on its creator. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. --[[User:Eequor   22:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is a hardcore group at Wikipedia with a program to endorse every contructed disinformation, as acts of ironic post-modernism. Not every vote "keep" is wholesomely motivated. This trashes the usefulness of Wikipedia. Wetman 22:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You have a right to vote as you see fit of course, but I'm not sure what you're saying? Could you explain? Kim Bruning 10:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I wondered about this too. I read Wetman as saying that there is conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia through a program of rabid inclusionism. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect. When I first came to wikipedia, I had never heard of Toki Pona.  I saw it mentioned here, so went to read the article.  As far as I can tell from the current article, there is nothing encyclopedic about Toki Pona.  It's an artificial language, equal to about 1000 others that I could make in an hour with my college linguistics textbook (or at least, I could make enough to fill a similar article).  There is no mention of number of speakers or any other feature of the language that might make it worthy of being included.  A short description of the author of the language and her qualifications would make the language seem slightly noteworthy, and statistics and anecdotes about its wide usage would do more.  Without either, I would be tempted to list both the language article and the author's article on VfD, if I didn't already have the impression that the language is noteworthy from another source (namely, that there exists a Toki Pona language wikipedia.  That makes it at least as noteworthy as Klingon, right?).  As it stands, I don't think both articles should be deleted, but just merge the author's article and redirect. -Lethe | Talk 18:07, Sep 17, 2004 (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.