Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantean 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 keep. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantean language

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources in article are directly related to the film. This is entirely in-universe plot summary and blatant original research. In any event it's also indiscriminate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator states that the only sources are "directly related" to the film. If that is supposed to imply that none of these are independent sources, and all are controlled by Disney, the filmmaker, that is incorrect. Among the sources are a book published by Dorling Kindersley, an article in USA Today, and websites such as Animationarchive.net, Reel.com, Moviehabit.com and Langmaker.com. The last appears out of business. Though I don't claim that all are excellent sources, I don't believe any of these six are Disney controlled sources. Cullen328 (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is about a extremely minor fictional element. It has not proven real notability outside Atlantis, by receiving deep coverage by reliable secondary sources, discussing the fictional language independently from the film. It also has no impact in popular culture. --LoЯd ۞pεth 23:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as not indescriminate and covered in multiple independent reliable sources. If it was such a minor element, one has to wonder at the quantity of in-depth critical commentary this "minor" element has. And while yes, the coverage is in relationship to Atlantis: The Lost Empire, so what? One would certainly expect that sources discussing a fictional element would need to and be required to do so in context to the notable film of which the element is a part. It meets WP:GNG... just as does Starship Enterprise and Millenium Falcon... and this article is far better sourced that either of those notable elements. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The argument that it's OR doesn't hold up as the majority of content is sourced (although the vocabulary section isn't and should probably go). Notability is tricky to assess as it's not always obvious which of the sources are reliable. USA Today is fine, and this one looks acceptable, so the topic would appear to just about meet WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Angr (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It had and has an impact on pop culture. At the time, the alphabet was on all sorts of merchandise and a lot of people from that age group learned it. It's comparable to other made-up languages for fiction, like Tolkein's Elvish, Avatar's language, or Klingon, it just didn't establish a community for more than 2 years. But in the world of hobbyists who make their own languages, it's very famousArticle Referencing Conlangs, as it's one of few constructed languages to be featured in a major motion picture, and it's also by the same guy who scored with Klingon (Dr. Mark Okrand). It's also important because Avatar was chiefly based on Atlantis: The Lost Empire to the very last details, from blue skin to including having a constructed language.

Dr. Okrand and Tolkein are the two most famous professional constructed language makers of all time, and their work is high-profile for conlangers. Constructed languages are fairly rare in books or movies, and Atlantean is far better explained than most, though it never received a book devoted to it, like Klingon. Furthermore, Atlantean is also significant in that, together with the American Heritage Dictionary's Appendix of Indo-European Roots and perhaps the same Calvert Watkin's book How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European, it's one of the two widest exposures that Indo-European has gotten to the public-at-large (being mostly based on PIE).

Any conlang in a major motion picture or published novel should have a Wikipedia article. It's a rare art form and an interesting phenomena. You know, conlangs are real languages made by linguists, with syntax, morphology, phonology, and idioms, not just code writing systems or code words for English. Just because most authors or movie-makers are too ignorant of linguistics to make one, and most of American audiences are too mono-lingual to appreciate one, doesn't mean conlangs are irrelevant. And among conlangs, Atlantean is something like a prince, if Klingon is a king or emperor. Conlangs, like real languages, have their place in art and pop culture, like Na'vi did in Avatar or Hawaiian did in Lilo and Stich Wiki News article on conlangs.

Blissglyphs (talk) 08:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly seems to have the sources to establish notability. It would be better if the article was shorter and focused on the background and importance of the language. The degree of detail now given would be better in an official site or a good fan site linked at the end. But whatever don't delete. Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are independent, unrelated references in sufficient number, and the topic of the article does seem to be notable. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd like to add more, but Blissglyphs has already worded it better than I possibly could. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aside from the above mentioned points regarding the language's notability, I also disagree that it is a plot summary about the movie. One paragraph summarizes the plot very broadly in order to show why it was designed the way it was. The remainder of the article very closely resembles articles on nearly any other language, natural or constructed. The examples are lines from the movie as that is the only body of literature for the language. But as it is a functional language, one could easily write any number of sentences to demonstrate the same points. However, there is no reason to when a source already exists. aremisasling (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (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.