Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarus (artificial 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sarus (artificial language)

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

Sarus (artificial language) is a WP:NN conlang which exists nowhere outside of the creator's own flash animations, Wikipedia, and a handful of forum posts. Interestingly, this article was turned into a redirect after this 2009 AfD, but was restored with no changes or explanation whatsoever (except the removal of the AfD tag) link. Since then, the only editors who have done more than simple maintenance are IP editors from the same location in Australia (the creator's country of origin) who have no other edits: user 1, user 2, and user 3. Given its total lack of notability, and the fact that the page was previously revived for no reason, it seems reasonable to fully delete the article. Hermione is a dude (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hermione is a dude (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Zakawer restored the content but didn't leave an edit summary. I further notice that Sarus is not currently mentioned at Adam Phillips (animator). With no evidence the language is independently notable, merge this to Adam Phillips (animator) per the 2009 consensus. Cnilep (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a merge called for when there is no evidence of notability at all? Hermione is a dude (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is possible for an artist to be notable, while his/her individual works are not. Comments about the work from reliable sources may be appropriate within an article on the artist, even if they don't rise to the level of independent notability. Compare Dame mit Sonnenschirm (mentioned in Paul Klee but not notable enough to warrant an article) and Mona Lisa (which warrants an article in addition to discussion at Leonardo da Vinci). (This is not intended as additional argument WRT Sarus, just an answer to Hermione is a dude.) Cnilep (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - You misunderstand me - Sarus is only a part of one of the artist's works (which I have also nominated for deletion. Given that this language is a NN part of a NN Newgrounds series created by a marginally notable artist, it is hard to see how its inclusion anywhere is warranted.Hermione is a dude (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I want to keep this article... I really do, but that's because I find conlangs fascinating. Unfortunately, I cannot find any external notability for it, so, per wikipedia policy, we have to chuck it. What a pity. Sigh. Fieari (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've searched high and low for anything to establish notability for this...anything at all that might qualify as a source. I have come up empty handed. I would also argue against merging this for the same reason. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of significance to this conlang outside of the creator's personal use, and I'm not convinced it contributes even to his page. If someone can prove he actually created something noteworthy that is used by others in his field then we should reconsider merging. Until then, no need to redirect or merge. ERK^talk 05:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article still contains nothing convincing for its own article and I myself have found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 07:03, 25 June 2016 (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.