Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simlish

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. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 14:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simlish

I don't think this article is worthy on Wikipedia. Sure the content is notable, but that does not automatically mean the article is for Wikipedia. Fictional languages do not have any content good enough for Wikipedia as languages that are fictional are not spoken by anybody or anything, not that every word of a language should be listed on Wikipedia. If there is going to be an article about languages, it should at least be a real language, but this article lists no words in the language which is not surprising. Mythdon (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All articles that meet the General Notability Guidelines (by having two or more reliable sources) should have an article on Wikipedia. The article needs cleanup for the Original Research issues as tagged, but not deletion. NullofWest (talk) 11:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fictional language seems like a notable aspect of this very popular computer game. Comments: 1. Many topics have two or more reliable sources but are not notable and shouldn't have WP articles. 2. The geekiness, triviality, and/or stupidity of the topic are not reasons to delete. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is almost entirely songs that are recorded in Simlish, and after that, the article just lists where Simlish is found, and the rare appearance of English. In addition, there is no direct translation for Simlish. However, the information stating the languages Simlish was derived from should be put on the main Sims 2 article. --Cmputer 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep- Here's some sources for notability, took just a few minute lookup on google to find. . [1], [2] and [3]. It also doesn't help the nom's case that their rationale reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nominating this article for deletion because I don't like (if I'm mistaken of what you are saying, please respond). I'm nominating this article for deletion because it does not belong here. Mythdon (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's notable enough, and of great interest to anyone who follows The Sims franchise. It can't go in the main Sims 2 article because it applies to all three Sims games, and Sid Meier's SimGolf. (Although I guess this article could be duplicated as a section on the articles for those four games). It's really no less useful than Klingon. --GrahamDo (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm a big fan of The Sims, I find this very interesting. I think that the article has reliable sources. Some cleanup might be needed, but with a little bit of time and work this can be done very quickly. Please don't delete!!! (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.23.137.2 (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think I'd say that but keep and possibly rename to a more music-emphasizing name. I agree that Simlish in itself is not have-an-article-notable, but the list of musicians who did a Simlish song has encyclopedic worth. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable phenomenon, sources for notability. The wording of the nomination in my opinion falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 23skidoo (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — While I disagree with a few the above reasons to keep, I have found five verifiable sources which I included on the article's talk page for usage, certainly showing notability (just in case anyone argues for deletion due to lack of notability). I also agree that the nomination is based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With that said, AfD is approaching WP:SNOW. MuZemike (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: nominator concedes it's notable, which is true due to the existence of reliable third-party sources. I'm not sure what the problem is. There's no rule against including fictional languages, particularly when it's been covered by reliable third-party sources. It's not the greatest article, but that's nothing a little clean-up couldn't fix. I'd support a merge, if someone felt it more suitable to summarize it and include it at The Sims (series). Randomran (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm currently researching variations in gibberish and was thrilled to find this page. Not only are there verifiable sources, arguably as important as an article on Klingon, and that highly notable musicians have recorded songs in this language, as a scholar it has already proved it's worth to me...isn't this what Wikipedia is about? Scholarly research. DO NOT DELETE. Why destroy perfectly good information on a notable phenomenon? --In Defense of the Artist (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – nominator concedes that the article is notable. I rest my case. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:32, 2 October 2008 (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.