Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meroo

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. kur ykh 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meroo

Although I love languages, Meroo (or Merovian)---the article uses both---seems to be a non-notable constructed language. I offer no opinion as to whether it should be kept or deleted. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, tag added, copyright violation of this page [1] Theseeker4 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have fixed the copyvio so this can have a discussion here, although it will probably go for not being notable, notability not being verifiable, being made up in one day, being a hoax etc. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note2 - this might be recreation of deleted content as well. The user User talk:Ar4a has previously created Merō and Merō izaka. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the link is to a forum which says "Our users have posted a total of 1 article; we have 1 registered user." This looks like something made up one day - anyway, fails WP:V, I have searched without finding anything relevant. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been updated, [2] - this page is by my administration, it is page which is registered in [forumotion.com].

Note - I try all my best to do this article readable. I'm new here, yet fast learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar4a (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - readability is not the problem, the problem is notability which requires "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Your only references are your own web-site and your own unpublished book. It is unlikely that a language made up in 2007 with only three speakers is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. More on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:52, 22 January 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.