Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mondlango

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. listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mondlango

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

Contested prod. Google only brings up the main website, plus some discussion board posts. Article contains zero references, nothing to establish WP:N, If notability can be established, then so be it, but I fear it cann't and so I say delete. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability, seems to be the grown-up version of a kids' made-up lingo. Unless more sources can be presented, of course. McMarcoP (talk) 08:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) The sources presented convinced me that there is a certain relevance, but I am Undecided whether they are enough to prove notability or not. If I had a gun pointed at my head and I needed to decide whether to keep or delete, anyway, I'd go for a keep. McMarcoP (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The grown-up version of a kids' made-up lingo"? Uh, no. This is an international auxiliary language. Similar to Esperanto, Interlingua, Solresol, Lingua Franca Nova, Glosa, Occidental, Novial and many others. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies, I forgot I used that expression. And apologies for having used it, I have been researching sources and I am becoming convinced that it indeed has a certain relevance. Will change my vote to Undecided at the moment. McMarcoP (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete.Mondlango is an active artificial language. It has an active group on Yahoo with many users. It has Wikipedia pages in French, Italian, Finnish, Polish, Esperanto. I am the creator of this page (although a page was created in the past - not by me - and then deleted). However, it is my first Wikipedia page ever and I lack of experience. Moreover, I am not subtile enough with English which is not my mother's tongue. Then, improvements are still necessary. I hope those will come in the next future, but I beg the rulers for their understanding and let this page survive. Let me add that Mondlango's creator is Chinese. On the Yahoo forum he explained that he could not create this page himself (I'm sure he would have done much better than me) because Wikipedia is difficult to access in China. So, please, do not be harsh, do not delete this page. Be open-minded. Thanks.Cazaux (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, for now. Cazaux, this is not a matter of understanding or sympathy. It is not about the question whether this language is good, interesting or useful either. It's about elementary things such as notability, verifiability etc. There are thousands and thousands of constructed languages, and we can't have articles about all of them. I'll be more than happy to let this one stay, but first there must be at least some proof that this language is important enough. So, are there books or articles about Mondlango, or books/articles about international auxiliary languages in which Mondlango is discussed? Has it ever been mentioned in a newspaper, on radio or TV? Is there anything like an objective, third-party review? Mind, internet fora and mailing lists are not considered evidence of anything, since they can easily be manipulated. Articles in other language editions aren't any proof of notability either. BTW, much as I regret that the author cannot access Wikipedia in China, that shouldn't make any difference for this discussion. Basically, people are not supposed to write articles about themselves or their creations (see WP:V). On a sidenote, the Polish version is extremely short, but it does mention that Mondlango is an analytical language without conjugation that reminds Chinese. That does not seem to match with what you write. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I believe you meant to link to "Vanity" (WP:V links to the page on verifiability). That's at WP:COI. Wiwaxia (talk) 06:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, thank you! —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the materials presented by Wiwaxia, I can't see any reason for deleting the article, hence I'm changing my vote to Keep. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 09:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK I understand. Thanks to all advices I've got recently. Concerning Mondlango's page, references are coming, people are starting to contribute. I hope this will demonstrate some notability. Danke.Cazaux (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed there's something going on with the page. I don't see the point of linking to lots of pages on the Mondlango domain, though; one link will do. What is needed is external, third-party sources: books, newspapers, scientific literature and the like. However, since it is clear that the article is currently being worked on, I think this discussion should not be closed until a week or so from now. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's discussed in Why You Need a Foreign Language & How to Learn One by Edward Trimnell. Wiwaxia (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks as if I missed a source when I was searching Google Books. Loquentes linguis: studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A... by Giorgio Borbone offers this analysis of Mondlango on p. 57: "Tipe unoseca esperantido aperas sub http://www.ulango.org/english/index.htm, kun la nomo Mondlango, A Language For The Global Village (el 2002, de He Yafu). Oni scias, ke jam ekzistas Esperanto. Sed ties uzo estqas 'too limited' pro tio, ke la lingvo havas kelkajn gravajn difektojn: (1) mankas q, w, x, y, male enestas ridindaj supersignoj, kiujn la esperantistoj obstine rifuzas forigi, tial 'the result looks' . . ." Wiwaxia (talk) 04:59, 26 August 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.