Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vendergood

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 to William James Sidis. seems clear enough by now DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vendergood

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

It is impossible to find verifiable independent sources for an article on this subject. The subject of the article has no notability. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I have also argued on the talk page, the author of the language is a very notable person. The article DOES give a reference to a reliable source, the trouble is only that this source isn't online. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion. Verifiable is not the same thing as verified. I will change my vote if it turns out that the biography in question mentions Vendergood only in passing (which would pose us for the question where the information in the article comes from in that case), but at present it would rather appear that the book IS the source of all the info. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively merge to William James Sidis any portions that actually are supported by Wallace's biography of Sidis or any other source. I have found a passing mention of Vendergood in a description of Sidis here, and in several reviews of Wallace's biography (e.g. here), but no grammatical descriptions of the constructed language. Cnilep (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as Cnilep has noted above. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources does not appear to exist. Location (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thing is only, Wallace's biography is both significant and reliable as a source. Nobody here seems to have read that book, and yet it is crucial to this discussion. But let me make one educated guess: if Vendergood is even mentioned in book reviews at all, then it is pretty likely that the book goes pretty much further than just mentioning it. In other words, the whole article is probably based on the biography. That means the info is verifiable, it only takes more than just the Internet to actually do the verifying. Remember: Internet presence is by no means a requirement, especially since Vendergood is a lot older. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The thing is not only that but also this: notability is determined by significant coverage in reliable sources (note that "sources" is plural), not significant coverage in a single reliable source. We all understand that the internet does not reveal every source on every topic, however, the burden of proof to show that sources exist is on those recommending keep. In order to split this from William James Sidis, I think we need much more that what have been shown above. Location (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Although the keep arguments have not been supported by multiple sources, this Afd is being relisted to allow seven more days for the keep editor(s) to provide multiple reliable sources to verify notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks and regards ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 12:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note for the record that contemporary book reviews cast into considerable doubt that Wallace's book is a reliable source itself. (I have read the book, and was appalled at its credulity about unverifiable statements about the late Sidis's life. So I looked up reviews of that book in a university library's collection of back issues of newspapers.) And if it is the sole source for the existence of the Vendergood constructed language, an off-hand mention of that in the existing biography article William James Sidis is surely enough for Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't go as far as saying that a reference must necessarily be scholarly. But that's just my opinion. I haven't read the book and I don't know what sources Wallace had at his disposal.

What I would like to notice is that the article on Vendergood attracts quite a lot of visitors. I know that's not an argument for keeping it at all, but I find it remarkable if you consider that it beats several constructed languages whose notability is undisputable. Being a bit of an expert in the field, I'd say that the language is of course impressive for an 8 y.o., but nothing special compared to many conlangs created by adult persons or even teenagers. It remains a bit of a strange case, but it's worth finding out what all this is really about. I'd also like to know what is behind the sentence that Vendergood has been used for encryption (by whom, for example).

I'd like to request that if the article is to be deleted/made into a redirect, the history is preserved. Either that, or please move it to my user space as User:IJzeren Jan/Vendergood and make a new redirect to the Sidis article. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the general information to Sidis and leave out the examples. Roscelese (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2010 (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.