Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talossan language (2nd nomination)

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 merge with Talossa. Hermione is a dude's suggestions are a good place to start. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talossan language

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

Talossan is the conlang associated with the Kingdom of Talossa, a micronation. It has not been noted in any academic or journalistic sources except for a single Wired article, which dedicates one paragraph to it in a much larger piece about Talossa and its owners, and an entry in Glottolog which only seems to note its existence. A general Google search only turns up websites operated by Talossa hobbyists, wikis, fora, mirrors, and so on. For these reasons, I think it is safe to say that this language is WP:NN despite over a decade of exposure on Wikipedia. I should also note that there have been two previous nominations for deletion, and in both cases the keep votes were based entirely on unverifiable claims regarding Talossan's immense popularity in the conlanging community (which goes against WP:V) and the argument that the number of Google hits it garnered proves its inherent notability (see WP:GNUM for why this is a poor argument). Hermione is a dude (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Talossa - Only the parts that are actually encyclopaedic should be on and reading that article, I can see it can easily fit into a section of another. Jackninja5 (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Talossa. The topic has received some coverage, but not enough to qualify a standalone article. A merge will improve the merge target article per WP:PRESERVE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Talossa - I agree that there is not enough for a standalone article, but enough, if selectively merged, to improve the target article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly could be merged? Almost all of the information found in this article is self-published.Hermione is a dude (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My proposal for a merger can be found in this sandbox page. Hermione is a dude (talk) 17:57, 24 January 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.