Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gourdinian Language

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 Deleted by User:Nixeagle per WP:CSD#G7 (author requested deletion by blanking page). — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Lignuists don't make typos! ;) Drmies (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the initial Speedy tag. IMHO it is vandalism rather than a misunderstanding of what's appropriate on WP because the author made up a whole history for it, which counts as blatant and obvious misinformation. Most hoaxers don't do it twice, so Speedy and a warning is good enough. andy (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "wouldn't", but it must have been a Freudian slip since linguists don't make typos. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! --Miskwito (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daghushyaba (that's Delete in Gourdinian). NawlinWiki (talk) 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. —An gr 05:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-avowed hoax andy (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. I presume User:OllyOlyosia is Shelfarian OllyO, who claims, "i was one of the constructors of gourdinian, a Latin based language." Also, "Yeah, i basically made it up lol". It may be a candidate for Speedy De
Delete. I agree that this looks like a hoax, although probably not so totally obvious to be speediable as vandalism. Google has never heard of *Gourdinia, and *Gourdin yields nothing helpful either. The mention of the dialect existing on both sides of the La Spezia-Rimini Line suggests that the author who invented this language has done a bit of reading in comparative Romance philology, but needs to ponder further. I wish him all the best in his language construction efforts; it is a great and harmless hobby. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - read his talk page - he admits he made it up. He's even tried blanking the article and been threatened with blocking if he does it again! Why is this not a speedy delete? andy (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like he blanked the page because he understands that we don't think it's appropriate for Wikipedia (see my discussions with him here), but isn't familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to know the proper deletion procedures (note that he moved the information to a user subpage, which looks to me like an attempt at userfication). I could be completely wrong and he's just jerking us around for fun, but I'm trying to assume good faith because at least personally I see no clear evidence not to --Miskwito (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, article's creator blanked the page indicating he wants it gone. Deleted as a G7. —— nix eagle^{email me} 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and someone should speak to the anti-vandal person that reverted him and warned him... what he did was appropriate. —— nix eagle^{email me} 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.