Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yorskr Tunguh


 * 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   delete. JForget 22:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yorskr Tunguh

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Someone (probably the creator) added this conlang to the List of constructed languages article, but this appears to be extremely non-notable. It gets only five Google hits, including the Wikipedia page. There are no hits on Google Books. Not only have I never heard of it despite my interest in conlanging, but there are no mentions of it on any of the main conlanging community sites (such as Langmaker or Janko Gorenc's list), nor is there any evidence that it is discussed in the conlanging community to the extent, say, Teonaht, or even Rokbeigalmki, is. There are no appearances whatsoever in print form (journals, newspapers, magazines, newsletters, books) nor could my search find any evidence of audio or video interviews on this language. The article cites an interview, but the interview is in a blog, and blogs are not reliable sources. Wiwaxia (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Being that someone (not the creator I might add!) I can honestly assure you that the article was created in good faith, although I see what you mean about the blog. I did get a copy of the materials before I wrote the article to assure myself it was genuine first, and it seems a very credible attempt to do what it says. As for not being mentioned in the conlang community, that really isn't where its focus seems to lie, although it actually IS on Janko Gorenc's list (http://janko.gorenc.googlepages.com/constructed_languages - located under "Y") and from what I can see Langmaker hasn't been online for a while now. YT is quite new also it would seem. Maybe we should give this one a little bit of leeway, timewise, to pick up interest? Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkpip (talk • contribs) 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment This article reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article (with the exception of the final section of prose). I've not personally looked for sources yet (hence this is tagged as a comment not a recommendation), but my gut feeling based on the comments above and the article is that this isn't notable, but has the potential to be so in the future (but note WP:CRYSTAL). Thryduulf (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Based on what I can see, I have to agree with Wiwaxia: as for now, the subject surely won't stand the Notability and the Verifiability trial. Yet, the subject is interesting. In this case, I would say it is sad that "being interesting" is not a reason to keep and article. Thryduulf is right, it reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a good read. Besides, this particular projects seem to be one of the very few of its kind. Obviously, an article about this subject is not warranted at the moment, but I wouldn't like to see this text disappear forever. Therefore I would suggest to transfer it to a safe place, like http://conlang.wikia.com/. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  02:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think IJzeren Jan has made some very sensible and salient observations, and has put his finger on the nub of the matter when he says "this particular project seems to be one of the very few of its kind" exactly the reason I put it in the List of Constructed Languages article. I'd be quite happy for this article to find a place in the suggested conlang wikia, but firstly, a few points that I feel must be made:
 * 1. There seems to be a semantic problem here, i.e. in the difference between the terms "notable" and "widely noted". They do not mean the same thing. Notable simply means marked by distinction, remarkability or particularity. The article itself is quite explicit about this when it says that the list is of..."languages with some notability, either historically or because of unusual characteristics". I would argue that a language constructed to supposedly reinvent a lost cultural heritage is notably unusual.
 * 2. I have taken the point about the tone of the article and altered it accordingly.
 * 3. I don't think we should take its success in the con-lang community as any sign of its success overall, as its focus obviously lies elsewhere, i.e. as a device of a common cultural region. It would be like saying that Kofi Annan's term as Secretary General of the UN was a failure because he happens to cook but isn't well known for it! Whether the con-lang community takes an interest or not is irrelevant, although as I have said, YT has made it into Janko Gorenc's list.
 * 4. My interest lies in this topic because of its relevance to Yorkshire, a relevance which would make it of interest of other people in the region too (a region of 5 million people I might add!).
 * Any further thoughts? Bkpip (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Notability" is a bit of a term-of-art here on Wikipedia, and its meaning is something quite close to "widely noted". Under our rules, we cannot look at a topic and say "hey, this is a good idea, and very interesting; we should have an article on it"; we are restricted to looking at third-party sources and determining if they have covered the topic in enough detail to construct a comprehensive article.  Powers T 17:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I for one shall not be rushing to contest Wikipedia's reappropriation of the English language on this occasion, lol. However, that little nugget doesn't change the fact that the list under discussion specified "unusual characteristics" as one of the qualifications for being notable. Furthermore, please don't confuse the list with the article. I was using the afore-mentioned phrase to challenge an attack on YT's inclusion on the List of Constructed Languages, not upon the article itself, if you read carefully. Bkpip (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I have copied this article to FrathWiki. If the result is delete, perhaps we could leave a stub that points there? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm more than happy with that if everyone else is.Bkpip (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete for lack of sources. The page cites none, and Google finds only two mentions outside Wikipedia, one on a blog and one a letter to the Yorkshire Post mentioning the language in passing. Neither is a reliable source. Cnilep (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not meet WP:N or WP:V. When searching for sources, I get the same results as Cnilep. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lack of independent secondary sources.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2009 (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.