Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenedyk

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. The vote was 16 for keep and 14 for delete. Woohookitty 02:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wenedyk

 * Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * Unsigned comment by at 16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC) – ABCD✉ 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Could Ish Ishwar please make it clear what the criteria of notability are? --IJzeren Jan 22:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * hi. i dont have any criteria and i dont see criteria proposed anywhere else. as i understand this, one person initiates a vote for an article and others simply vote delete or keep. because there is no criteria, i am asking the interested to think about such things. my question is: What constraints are there for the inclusion of conlangs in an encyclopedia?. a related question is: Are all conlangs eligible in for inclusion?.
 * so, my answer is a question. whatever answer there may be will a community-based answer. peace – ishwar  (speak)  01:25, 2005 July 24 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, but you use two arguments in your VfD. First that the article is about a conlang (as if that proves its irrelevance), and secondly, that you believe it is not notable. And now you don't seem to have any idea about what could make a language notable. Personally I'd only issue a VfD when I am véry seriously convinced that there is no place for a lemma in the wiki, not merely because I have some hunch. But anyway, I do not think all conlangs are eligible for inclusion, and yes, I've voted "delete" at multiple occasions. I believe IALs can be judged by their success (number of actual users, now or in the past), while artlangs by the acclaim or appreciation they receive. --IJzeren Jan 18:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the first sentence is not an argument, but an indication of the content of the article.
 * i believed then and i believe now that the article is not notable. i have a hunch and i seriously believe that this is so.
 * my idea of what is notable is primarily based on my expectations of the content of similar encyclopedic materal. if there was an article on Wenedyk in some similar encyclopedia-type book/media, i would feel that the editors were not making wise editorial decisions. – ishwar  (speak)  20:09, 2005 July 24 (UTC)


 * Delete. According to the article, the language in question was created by fellow Wikipedian User:IJzeren_Jan as a pastime. As interesting as I find his speculations, this is certainly not an eligible topic for a serious encyclopedia. All private fictional (corrected, Thorsten1 18:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)) constructed languages in Category:Artistic_languages, except those that feature in well-known works of fiction and have developed a cult following (Klingon language) or are otherwise notable (Newspeak), should also be deleted. --Thorsten1 16:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - If you delete this article, please proceed and remove all the constructed languages that appear in this list. If you delete this one, but keep the others, it'll be unfair. I think this kind of articles is worth enough, and they hurt no one. Thanks. Assdl 16:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I glanced at that list. The very first item on the list was advocated as an international language by Winston Churchill in a speach at Harvard. Are you seriously comparing Wenedyk to Basic English? Now, I'm all for removing non-notable languages on that list, but let's not get silly here. -Harmil 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * has 25 edits – ABCD✉ 17:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is because I usually write in the Spanish Wikipedia. Quality is more important than Quantity. I do feel offended about ABCD's comments and a strong sense of outrage at all this unexplained witch-hunt against artistic languages. Assdl 15:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "There are a lot of useless conlang articles" isn't an argument for keeping this one. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - see no harm. Renata3 16:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Renata, I'm sorry - the "no harm" argument is cropping up again and again, but IMHO it's totally wrong. I suggest to redefine the criterion under which articles are kept or deleted, from "harm" to "use". In other words, rather than keeping everything unless it's explicitly proven to be harmful, let's simply delete everything that is of no apparent use. --Thorsten1 18:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, information of "no apparent use" is what constitutes about half of all the space in any encyclopedia. Elemtilas
 * Delete - non notable constructed language -Harmil 16:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - as far as I know User:IJzeren_Jan did not create the article himself. In addition, it's not the least notable of conlangs out there Dewrad 16:57, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. IJzeren Jan 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dewrad, neither of the points that you cite are under contention. Other low-notability conlangs are certainly worthy of deletion too. -Harmil 17:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * has 48 edits – ABCD✉ 17:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well noted. I would ask how this is relevant in the current context as I assume that you did not spring Athena-like from Zeus' forehead with 200+ edits. My relative quietness does not invalidate my opinion, no make it of any less worth than another's. Dewrad 00:03, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think that if someone would like information on a conlang, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to start. -Firespeaker 18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a good starting point at Artistic language. Elemtilas
 * User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What an utterly pointless way of dealing with people who do not vote the way you'd like them too. What does the amount of edits matter? Apparently Firespeaker ís a registered wikipedia user and contributor who knows something about the subject. Personally I'd rather trust somebody on his specialism(s) than on his number of edits. --IJzeren Jan 23:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've made more than fifty edits before creating an account; so have others. Accusing people of being inexperienced is pointless; it's against the principles of Wikipedia. dhasenan 14:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Observation Though it may not be the case here, my understanding is that when an edit count is noted in VFD, it's often as an implicit accusation of sockpuppetry. The Literate Engineer 19:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, and this is the case in Spanish wikipedia where I am more active, a minimun of proven contributions is required in order to be elegible to vote (and the vote to be counted). This should rule out sockpuppetry or, as I see here, calling for votes outside regular wikipedia community.  Personally I thing other criteria should be used... when I see these VdD I had 38 edits using my registred user in English wikipedia... however I would have near 50 with unregistered editions including a few before March (when I registered), and I am much more active in w:es:.  It was anyhow too easy to get the 50 edits before I voted... and I do not mean idle edits but edits intended to improve Wikipedia. &mdash; Carlos Th (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me clear this up. WP:GVFD says that it is "sufficient" to mark the edits of very new users accordingly, rather than to accuse them of sockpuppetry, so that allegation is not being made. It is a common practise in VfD and other places so to mark new user's votes/comments; it just makes the closing admin's life a bit easier. However, I personally would not usually mark someone with 50 edits; I reserve that for a handful of edits with a clear agenda. Just because your vote may have been marked does not mean it will be discounted. That is for the closing admin to judge. Generally speaking however, if a new (or fairly new) user comes along to a VfD and clearly pushes an agenda, their vote will be discounted. I'm not making any judgement of whether that is happening here, just clarifying usual procedure. -Splash 22:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - notability not established. mikka (t) 18:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - at least semi-notable as conlangs go. -- pne 18:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/undefined 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - it seems at least semi-notable, especially given the number of cross-language links to other Wikipedias. --Prosfilaes 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not a standard here --malathion talk 21:11, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What is a basis here? -Splash 23:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, nonnotable. - Mustafaa 21:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For the record, I am the creator of this language, and I have no claims regarding its notability. Therefore, I feel pretty much like abstaining in this discussion, and it feels rather odd to vote in favour of keeping it after all. I am doing so not because I want to defend my creation, but because this seems to be a rather massive attack on constructed languages (especially those created for artistic purposes) in general. --IJzeren Jan 22:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is an attack on a neglected area. Precisely because of their nonnotability they were hanging around for quite some time. And as a wikipedia editor you should know better not to vote in the way you did: not by the article merit, but by judging someone's intentions. mikka (t) 23:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned elsewhere, I am fully prepared to discuss the notability issue with you and with anybody else. Sorry for my reaction. I'm a bit tired of these discussions, since the same thing is currently going on in the German wiki. We've had it on the Dutch wikipedia too (for the record, it easily survived the VfD there). It's not my intention to advert myself or my creation, but I stand up in defence of all conlangs that I and well-informed others consider notable. Including my own. --IJzeren Jan 23:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Jan, as I said above, personally I think your idea is interesting and intellectually intriguing for anyone interested in Indoeuropean languages and history, I really admire the effort you put into this, and the last thing I want is to offend you. However, if you are honest with yourself, you will have to agree that this is essentially a private hobby of yours and very few others, with no relevance to the "real world". I assume that the number of people who learned about Wenedyk from Wikipedia in the first place (like me) is infinitely higher than the number of people who have heard about it somewhere else and then turn to Wikipedia to learn more. In the end, this just isn't what an encyclopedia is about, paper or no paper. The language belongs to a fictional universe Ill Bethisad - entertained, according to the article, by some 30 people. We have got our hands full with writing an encyclopedia on the non-fictional universe - we really should stick to that, rather than absorbing the minutiae of fictional ones. "Ill Bethisad" already has its own, very nice Wikipedia counterpart - why not maintain this division of labour? --Thorsten1 00:55, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I must disagree móst strongly in part: conlanging is not so much a "private hobby" as it is an artistic form. While poets take existing words from an existing language (usally) to create something of artistic beauty and even if no one understands what they mean by it; conlangers simply take of the foundational material of Language itself to create something of artistic beauty. Even if no one understands what they mean by it. As for "relevance to the real world", I can easily name two dozen artists who wasted their time on things that were not at all "relevant to the real world". We can start with JS Bach, work our way through Michaelangelo and end up near Zamfir. Art ìs irrelevant to the "real world" -- you can't eat it, can't sleep under it, it won't keep you warm in Winter (usually) and won't alleviate your arthritis. That doesn't mean art is without its own merit. That said, while I will later vote for the article's deletion, it should be noted that Wenedyk has as much relation to the "real world" as any other work of art. Elemtilas
 * Answer - Thanks for your kind words, Thorsten, I take no offense whatsoever from what you wrote. And I understand your point, too. Even better, I agree with you that we (wikipedians) should not be absorbing the minutiae of fictional worlds or of any other works of art. For that purpose I maintain a website, which contains all there is to know about Wenedyk. But we are not talking minutiae here, we are talking about an encyclopedic (or perhaps rather, wikipedic) entry. And this entry should nót contain a descriptive grammar of any kind, only something along the line of: Wenedyk is a language constructed by ... for purpose of ... with ... as its distinguishing characteristics ... and its significance is .... The same goes for Ill Bethisad: the details are in the IB wiki (with currently more than 1,200 articles), a number of websites and a mailing list; while the wikipedia entry consists of nothing but a short encyclopedic description of what IB is. From this point of view, I think the articles in question are far more justified than biographies of individual Star Trek characters and the like. But if lemmata on Star Trek and Babylon 5 are acceptable, I don't see why a lemma on Ill Bethisad wouldn't be.
 * Furthermore, I'd like to note that I have learnt about a lot of things through Wikipedia, things I'd never have known about without it. That's what I like about Wikipedia in the first place. But FWIW: most reactions I got about Wenedyk were not from people who knew it through Wikipedia, but from people who had read an article about it in a Polish magazine. Regards, IJzeren Jan 09:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not about the non-fictional universe; it's about the human universe, including things like Botchan and Superman. A language that was created and used by humans in the real world should not be dismissed on those grounds anymore than the above two articles should. --Prosfilaes 06:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment, mainly to Jan and Splash. - "it's about the human universe, including things like Botchan and Superman". Nobody disputed that the world of fiction has a place in Wikipedia. Fiction is a part of the human world. But that does not make any peace of fiction eligible for its own article. To use your examples, according to the article Botchan is "one of the most popular novels in Japan" which "[m]ost Japanese read [...] during their childhood"; and Superman "became one of the most popular and well-known comic book icons of all time.". I do not think quite the same can be said about "Ill Bethisad".
 * "From this point of view, I think the articles in question are far more justified than biographies of individual Star Trek characters and the like." I couldn't possibly agree more; but two wrongs don't make a right, and one can only deal with deletion candidates one at a time. Also, it would be very difficult to convince trekkies that they should learn to live without an article on the x-language spoken by the y-species in the z-galaxy - although its "existence" may have been brought to the attention of millions of square-eyed couch potatoes - when at the same time we decide to keep hobbyhorses like these.
 * "if lemmata on Star Trek and Babylon 5 are acceptable, I don't see why a lemma on Ill Bethisad". Frankly, if I had the choice between watching an episode of Star Trek or Babylon 5, or reading a spin-off book, and reading a book about or watching an episode of Ill Bethisad (in that universe's languages with subtitles...) I would almost definitely go for the latter. The fact remains, though, I simply do not have that choice. And since you mention it, the Ill Bethisad article is already borderline for me. The best case that can be made for is that it's one example of the intellectual standard an internet-based counter-culture to mainstream entertainment can achieve, so I'd vote a weak keep. If so, the article should naturally give due mention to Wenedyk and the other languages contained within the universe. But to outhouse its countries, their languages etc. - that is what I meant by "minutiae" - to separate articles is definitely over the top for me. By the way, in spite of what you said about the division of labour between Wikipedia and the IB Wiki, the fact is that Wenedyk contains way more (although not the same) information than Wenedyk does.
 * On a final note, it is hardly surprising that the idea of Wenedyk appeals more to Polish speakers with a knowledge of Romance languages (or vice versa) than to others; but this does not really disprove my point. --Thorsten1 11:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * If, um, "millions of square-eyed couch potatoes" are aware of it, I don't see any reason not to have an article on it. We have articles on Cherokee, Oklahoma; I fail to see why something of cultural significance to millions of anyone, no matter how much contempt some people have for them, would be unimportant. --Prosfilaes 21:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

(UTC) Keep Waerth 19:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nonotable, and no established basis. -Splash 23:19, 23 July 2005
 * Delete I'm an artlanger myself but I don't think articles on the individual artlangs are encyclopedic. Sorry Jan. Felix the Cassowary 00:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Only one point of notability per CONLANG (top 100 on Langmaker), two are needed.  Almafeta 01:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Part of understanding Brithenig article, which is considered notable (see its VfD page for why).  Almafeta 04:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm finding Thorsten1's argument the most convincing.  Unless used as a vernacular in some community, or at least having a sizable pool of people who are conversant in it even if they don't actually use it, I think a conlang doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  The Literate Engineer 06:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think those requirements are overkill. There's articles on poems that no one knows by heart; the question is not is it in use, but is it something that someone might be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. And Wikipedia has (rightly) never been very restrictive about what people might want to look up. --Prosfilaes 07:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * the question is not is it in use, but is it something that someone might be interested in looking up in an encyclopedia. -- that sounds good to me. -- pne 11:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable phenomenon. -- Visviva 12:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas
 * Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas
 * Keep. It would be a harm to Wikipedia were there no article on a subject a reader might look up, and none is done if there is. Why people want to delete perfectly acceptable minority-interest articles is their own business but they are not working towards an encyclopaedia that includes the sum of all human knowledge but rather an online Britannica. Hey! There already is one of those, isn't there? With fewer mistakes! Grace Note 05:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonnotable conlang. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. BenctPhilipJonsson 19:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * May I ask what the point of this editcounting is? As far as I am concerned, a user is either entitled to vote or not. This user was already a registered user before the vote started, and so he is entitled to vote; the number of his edits is not a criterion. But, since you are so interested in counting people's number of edits, why do you only count the edits of those who voted for keeping? --IJzeren Jan 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't WP Not A Soapbox mean that WP is not an Art Gallery?  The Literate Engineer 19:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Therefore we should delete the page on the Mona Lisa? Dewrad 19:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, therefore an article about an artlang must be able to present equivalents of Mona Lisa's sections "Role in popular culture and avant-garde art", or "Identity of the model". That is to say, it must be a encyclopedia article, meeting such criteria as verifiability and compliance with No Original Research, that is about the language, rather than just a showcase for the language.   The Literate Engineer 20:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as it's really necessary to point out: the existence of Wenedyk ís verifiable, and the article is nót original research. As the creator of the language, I can guarantee you that! --IJzeren Jan 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see why Wikipedia not being a soap box means that Wikipedia is not an art gallery. An encyclopeida certainly doesn't need to go on about the identity of the model and its role in popular culture; it would fine to have an article that was an extended version of "One of Twain's minor works involving Tom Sawyer, Tom Sawyer meets King Arthur was originally written in 1889 but not published until 2006." --Prosfilaes 20:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability isn't a criterion of VfD. Dewrad 06:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * While "notability" is not part of the policy-as-written, it is a de facto criterium for deletion, see Radiants comments on this issue. JamesBurns 06:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is not established.  Those who think it is not a criterion for VfD need to learn some basic textual analysis skills. Indrian 20:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Those on the other hand who do believe notability is a criterion for VfD would do well to review Wikipedia's policy on the matter. Dewrad 21:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I note with concern that a single user has originated all the current VfD's concerning conlangs. He seems to be on a one-man campaign to remove all articles about particular works of a given artform. I would like to request him to cease and desist.
 * Keep. While I do not condone notability as a criterion for inclusion (Wikipedia is not paper), it appears to me that this article sufficiently establishes notability in the context of artistic languages, since few of them ever acquire a vocabulary of Wenedyk's size. arj 14:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Only 875 Google hits, and most of the top 50 are Wikipedia mirrors or pages within a handful of conlang-specialized sites (the Wenedyk official site, Langmaker, FrathWiki and the CONLANG-L archives).  If someone can point out more evidence of influence on other conlangers, etc., I may consider changing my vote.  (Maybe we should consider discussing and voting on a Wikipedia policy on criteria for inclusion of conlangs, rather than arguing about what constitutes notability every time...?  Almafeta's conlang notability criteria might be a good starting point.  Where would be the appropriate place to propose/discuss such a new policy?) --Jim Henry | Talk 04:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * IJzeren Jan suggested (on the Brithenig VfD page) that we start the discussion on Talk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose.  Maybe we should copy Almafeta's conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment (in the main talk page) on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...?  --Jim Henry | Talk 16:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep suitably noteable for a constructed language. Eclipsed 22:36, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.