Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talossan 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 8 clear delete votes and 5 clear keep votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to "keep" for now. Rossami (talk) 02:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talossan language
Vanity conlang made up for the vanity micronation Talossa. See also the vanity bio R. Ben Madison. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To have constructed a dictionary of 28000 words by speaking the language (assuming that this is verifiable) is a notable achievement for "a few dozen" people. And yes, a quick Google Groups search shows that this does appear to have the "interest" (although perhaps not the "respect") of those who study constructed languages. Keep and send to Cleanup. Uncle G 16:14, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Delete.  Constructed languages are like model airplanes.   The hobbies of constructing languages or model airplanes are notable.   The actual languages or airplane models usually are not.  --BM 18:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The vast majority of conlangs are non-notable (as are, indeed the vast majority of micronations). Talossa is not a non-notable micronation; Talossan; having an extensive lexicon and grammar and being reasonably well-attested throughout the web, is notable as an example of its sort of conlang. Keep as exception to general principle. Lacrimosus 19:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't agree. For it to be notable, it would have had to break out of the conlang "community" to the wider world. Saying it is notable because conlangers talk about it on the Web is like saying that fictional planets in the Star Wars universe are notable because Star Wars fans talk about them on the Internet.  Oh wait, never mind.   --BM 20:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The simile would only be appropriate if real people actually lived on those fictional planets. People do, reportedly (see my previous caveat), actually speak this language.  And, reportedly, the language grows by actual use.  Whether it has as many speakers, or is used as often, as Klingon is certainly a factor.  But the Google Groups search indicates that this is more than simply R. Ben Madison alone proselytising something that he made up.  My biggest concern is not with the language, but with the "micronation" aspect.  This seems more like a long running role-playing game than a nation, which the players have fleshed out with a language with its own detailed fictional history.  That's certainly a reason to be highly dubious of an R. Ben Madison article.  However, whilst the position of king in an RPG isn't real the language invented for players of that game to use when playing is real, and appears to have garnered some attention (albeit, as I mentioned before, not as positive as this article makes out) from outsiders. So for me, the notability of this language rests upon whether it has any outstanding features (which, given that other constructed languages also grow by use, is not certain) and how widespread its use, and the study of it, are (which, I point out again, I'd like to see verified). Uncle G 13:33, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * People don't really speak these languages as a primary language, or even for any real purpose other than their own amusement.  I read an article about a Klingon "speaker" who tried to make his infant son bi-lingual in Klingon and English.  He spoke exclusively Klingon to the boy and his wife spoke exclusively English.  This should have worked: lots of kids are bilingual, or even trilingual because of strategies like this adopted by their parents.  But the experiment failed: the kid refused to speak Klingon after a while.   One reason that was proposed for this was that Klingon didn't have a lot of useful words for households with infants like "diaper" and "sippy-cup".    Or maybe it would have worked if it had been his mother speaking the Klingon.  We don't call them mother tongues for nothing, but mothers are probably not nutty enough to try it.  The reason might be more profound: there just might be something about real human languages that people don't understand well enough yet to create a language from scratch that someone can actually acquire as a child.   A conlang that someone taught to their child might be notable.  This one is just a hobbyist plaything. --BM 18:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: As a linguistics student, and one with an interest in conlangs, I would dispute this. There is nothing within the Klingon language's grammar that would prevent it being acquired as a native language. The reasons it its not have to do with sociolinguistic and pragmatic factors. As for outstanding features, in terms of conlangs, it has an exceptionally large lexicon, quite a lengthy history, and an unusually large speaker/enthusiast base. These are what motivates me to consider this as an exception to generally non-notable conlangs. The point about Quenya, Sindarin and Esperanto is taken, but I think a fair overview of conlanging, existing as it does largely on the Internet, is prevented if we restrict ourselves to published works (as we wouldn't do, with say, the furry community). Lacrimosus 20:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Although I'm a conlanger by myself, this hasn't reached any status like Esperanto, Quenya, Sindarin or Klingon. If I encounter an article about my own conlangs, I would also nominate it to VfD, because of non-notability --Neigel von Teighen 20:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --fvw *  21:40, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Anything that gets 4500 Google hits says keep to me. GeorgeStepanek\talk  23:58, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we base Wikipedia articles purely on how often it is mentioned on the internat, the random page link will need to be certificate 18. Average Earthman 00:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Precedent suggests that this number of Google hits is sufficient to establish notability. GeorgeStepanek\talk   01:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Precedent is a guide, not a god. Google is not an absolute, and can be deliberately or inadvertantly distorted. for example, Google currently says the second most important use of the phrase 'Average Earthman' is by me. Average Earthman 12:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, with only 130 Google hits you're not doing too well. I would vote to delete you. ;-) 20:37, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you find an article entitled Average Earthman outside of user space, you're welcome to nominate it... Average Earthman 10:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable conlang.  We don't even have an article on the crummy micronation, just a two-line entry in Micronation.  RickK 00:54, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: unfortunately, an item's coverage on Wikipedia is a poor indication of its relative importance ;) Lacrimosus 20:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, it seems a bit crufty to me. A bit crufty. Delete. Everyking 04:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia shoud be in the business of including information, even rather obsure information.Zantastik 07:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Your comment at Talk:On the Justice of Roosting Chickens kind of disagrees with that. RickK 07:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has an active speaking community, which puts it in pretty rarefied company for conlangs. It's also a pretty good example of an a posteriori naturalistic conlang.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:57, 5 Feb 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.