Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conlang X-SAMPA

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. Only "merge" !votes give improper policy-based arguments or no target. Delete due to non-notability/lack of sourcing (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conlang X-SAMPA

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

Conlang X-SAMPA is a non-notable revision of X-SAMPA made by and used exclusively in a mailing list which is itself non-notable. I don't see how this could even survive being included on the main X-SAMPA page as it is essentially a homebrew system.Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete. I'd suggest working this into the main article on the mailing list, except it continues to not have been written (for 6½ years now). Could be mentioned on the main X-SAMPA article perhaps, but yes, doesn't need a full discussion there. (I've contributed almost all of the actual content in this article FWIW, but this has been forked on one of the conlang wikis by now, so nbd.) --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 20:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I scanned the edit history for quantitative editors but forgot to look for qualitative ones. Hermione is a dude (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge; I can see a page on the list, though someone would have to find the reliable sources. This is sub-notable on its own, and probably not notable enough for X-SAMPA; then again, relatively speaking, how much less notable is this then X-SAMPA?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hermione is a dude (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what my opinion is worth, I'd vote for merge, though perhaps not even in its own section. Even if CXS isn't particularly used outside the conlang community, I'd say it's still enough to make some note of it as alternate symbols, though probably just a sentence introducing CXS and then mention the symbols parenthetically. WovenTales (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WovenTales. You are new to Wikipedia, so let me point you to Wikipedia's policy on notability. CXS hasn't been covered by any sources that I can find except on a few personal websites that are presumable run by members of CONLANG. It is basically the linguistics equivalent of a house rule. It's not even used much in the conlanging community as you imply, it is mostly restricted to CONLANG. Even if it were universal within that community, it would still fail to meet notability. Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- However, Wikipedia:Notability says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." It's not relevant to the question of whether or not Conlang X-SAMPA should be merged to X-SAMPA or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 17:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are more comments needed? Hermione is a dude (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2013 (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.