Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourdinian Language

This is not blatant enough for a speedy tag (which I declined), but I can't really find anything to verify this at all. Is it a hoax? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. Nothing on Google Books, and, ahem, nothing in a collection of books including Algeo and Pyles. 5 speakers? Western Europe? But it isn't even in a country somewhere? Or is it Italy? Pff, nonsense. Please deliver a stern warning to the creator--I have a wiffle bat you can borrow. Drmies (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP. Doesn't even make sense. Also vandalized the article on Romance languages. Drawn Some (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:MADEUP. The editor who added the initial Speedy tag points us to this page, which does seem to indicate that the person who created the article also created the language (as if that wasn't obvious already).
For the record, another editor added a speedy tag again, ~~but I removed it~~ (NB: he added it back) -- partly because we're in the middle of an AFD discussion, but partly because I agree with LinguistAtLarge that this shouldn't really fall under the category of "obvious vandalism". Stuff made up one day added to Wikipedia can just be someone misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia, rather than intentionally damaging the encyclopedia. --Miskwito (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added the speedy tag because a.) speedy and AFD can overlap, and b.) I believe that it is indeed epic fail of the common sense test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede they can overlap, and if that were my only reason I wouldn't have done anything. I've been considering this some more, though, and I'm realizing that I don't know that I was thinking about "stuff made up one day" in the right way. "Stuff made up one day" applies more to things like "Blah blah blah is a game played by three people in Delaware since last Tuesday", whereas this article is purporting to be about something other than it actually is. It's describing a fictional language as if it were real. And I admit that the distinction hadn't occurred to me initially. However, I still don't see how it can qualify as "blatant vandalism", because it's entirely possible that the editor misunderstands the type of article that's acceptable on Wikipedia, and isn't intentionally trying to damage the project. I mean, this clearly is an article that should be deleted, but I still don't think speedy deletion is the correct channel for that, and I think we should be communicating what the issues here are to the editor, rather than having a bunch of people posting warnings on his talk page and then slapping a speedy tag on the article --Miskwito (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're already here, it would hurt to get an AfD verdict, which would be helpful if the article is indeed deleted and then re-created. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would hurt? Or was that a typo? --Miskwito (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]