Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viossa


 * 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 Draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Viossa

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article is about a conlang that does not appear to pass WP:GNG. The article's references are either primary (LCC8, Korohtella, Davi Hanu, K'Slucj) or otherwise unusable (Wiktionary is user-edited, Langstuff is a self-published blog by someone with "no formal linguistic training or education of any kind or level", HCC times is a blog post by an undergraduate, the Shane Nichols source appears to be a class paper as no article by that name has ever appeared in the journal Syntax, and Frzzl is the page creator's personal website). The only potentially usable source is from the Language Museum, but that alone isn't enough for notability and I cannot find other independent discussion. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 21:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete NO sourcing of any kind found, we can't keep the article as there just aren't enough RS. Could perhaps redirect the the "online community"/blog/reddit sub/ whatever that created this, but it doesn't seem to have an article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - Having written the article, I don't intent to !vote on this, but thanks for the nomination; I'm leaving a comment to just denote I'm aware of it and will watch its progression. On that note I'd like to apologise for the sourcing of it; I wasn't aware of much of the policy at the time. 23:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Question, would it be possible to have this article be moved to the Draft namespace rather than deletion? AmberWing1352 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It could be possible if enough people vote to draftify. If its deleted, the venue for that would be WP:RFU. I'll just say that I think it's unlikely a draft could be turned into an article given how scarce the sourcing is. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 11:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant that perhaps draftifying could give time for a secondary source to have said something, even if it’s unlikely. AmberWing1352 (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify - I really like this article. It's well-written and encyclopaedic. The problem is that I can't find any way to stretch WP:GNG's WP:SIGCOV to justify it as a mainspace article at this time. I would recommend moving to the primary editor's draftspace and watching for the conpidgen to be cited in academic papers, which I think may be likely over time. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify - If keeping the article is not possible, then I agree with User:Last1in that it would be best to draftify until mentioned in a secondary, academic paper. AmberWing1352 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Refine -- I think it's somewhat hasty to jump to deletion.
 * Included in the article is a link to a Conlang Critic video about Viossa, which I think on its own might satisfy GNG, though I wonder what the others would think. In my opinion it's a mistake to ignore this source both as the author of the article and as a critic of it. It is a well-formatted video essay a bit over half an hour in length, by an author whose main draw is their analysis and criticism of constructed languages. The video essay features interviews (disclosure: I am interviewed in the video), but it is clearly in-depth, thoughtfully-curated, and public coverage of the topic from outside its immediate community. Perhaps some of the sources cited throughout the article could be linked to information in this video rather than to primary sources, or the others that are less usable like the Nichols paper (which, by the way, is also thoughtfully written even if it is clearly not from an academic journal called Syntax).
 * Other sources could be moved around, for instance, the source given for the flag need not be the source used in this article as it is also present on Vikoli.org, which has no affiliation with Frzzl, although it is a primary source relative to the topic. Nikomikodjin (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Conlang Critic video absolutely does not satisfy WP:GNG. A YouTube video is no different than a blog or other self-published sources per WP:SPS - If Misali is a proven subject-matter expert whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications then there could feasibly be an argument that it's reliable, but a single source isn't going to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG anyway. As far as moving sources around goes, we can do that all we want and there still wouldn't be enough significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 06:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see your point! I believe it's worth investigating whether we can consider jan Misali a subject-matter expert at the very least, and I think it should be taken into consideration that Conlanging is an already somewhat obscure art form, one for which it is often difficult to find the same kind of non-SP sourcing that WP's guidelines demand. The current sourcing certainly doesn't meet that standard, especially with the understanding that self-published sources are central to the issue. However, I wonder if someone from the Conlang WikiProject would be willing to offer some other thoughts: Conlangs are a somewhat specialized domain and what qualifies for notability within that domain is possibly different from general notability—perhaps precedent exists for some reasonable exception to be applicable, even if the article doesn't pass WP:GNG.
 * At any rate, being a member of the community in question, it's most likely best if I let others continue. I will eagerly await the results of this discussion. Nikomikodjin (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2023 (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.