Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (3rd 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 redirect to Zompist.com. Nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding delete !votes but not enough for a consensus to delete. Sound arguments for both keeping and redirecting. Consider this a "keep" closure combined with a personal editorial decision to redirect. No prejudice against undoing the redirect. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdurian language

The prod was removed. This is a fictional language, aka a constructed language, for which the only source is this website of the creator. I checked for sources and could find no reliable sources referring to it. Fences&Windows 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. Fences&Windows 19:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fictional_language#Internet-based_fictional_languages where it is mentioned; nn on its own. JJL (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect, can't find any reliable sources to establish notability. It is mentioned in Fictional_language#Internet-based_fictional_languages, so it can be redirected there. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, with the new information supplied it appears to have some notability. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zompist.com - Michael J Swassing (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article contains not one but three different reliable, independent sources. Besides, everyone in the Internet conlanging community knows about the language. Subliminable (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) — Subliminable (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Weak delete The only mention in reliable sources I could find is this, and I do not think it is significant. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if only to stop somebody from dragging it out again - Pthag (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- it's clear that the people voting to delete, such as Fences and windows, haven't actually read the article. As the keeper pointed out, I have 3 independent, reliable sources, plus Rosenfelder's website, which while not independent is still reliable and authoritative. Granted, one of the sources is fiction, but even authors of fiction are expected to get their facts right. How many conlangs are notable enough to get mentioned in a novel written by someone other than the conlang's creator? As a matter of fact, a lot of conlangs for which somebody claimed there were no independent sources and put them up for AfD have since had independent sources, often from books, found -- Toki Pona, Lingua Franca Nova, Kēlen, etc. If the conlang is well-known enough, there will almost certainly be independent sources published somewhere. I've also seen Verdurian mentioned in some newspaper articles about Internet-based conlanging, much as Teonaht is often mentioned, although I can't find any in a search. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I did read it. Try to WP:AGF. I'm missing your independent, reliable sources. For the slow ones in the class, please spell out what they are and what they say about Verdurian. Oh, one of them is a minor reference in a fiction book. What are the other two? Fences&Windows 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two:

[Inhabitants: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, Icon Group International, Inc., (C) 2008, p. 561.]
[Ethnoslavica: Johannes Reinhart, Tilmann Reuther, Gerhard Neweklowsky, (C) 2006, p. 213.] Wiwaxia (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icon Group International chucks together computer generated books; it's not a reliable source. What does the Ethnoslavica book actually say about Verdurian? Is it more than a passing reference? I also note the reference provided by PeteBleackley below, but there's still not substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fences&Windows 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhart et al. say: "Andere gelagert ist der Fall in der Grammatik des Verdurianishen und seiner Dialekte von Mark Rosenfelder aus Oak Park Illinois (www.zompist.com). Auch er benützt das Graphem (ř) in seiner Conlang lediglich als exotisch anmutende Wiedergabemöglichkeit von uvularem [R] wie." My German is not great, but I make that, "Another use [of the letter (r) with a diacritic] is in the language Verdurian and its dialects, created my Mark Rosenfelder of Oak Park Illinois. The grapheme (ř) is used in the conlang as an exotic-seeming rendition of the uvular [R]." As far as I can see, that is the only mention of Verdurian in the book. Cnilep (talk) 19:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. That Verdurian is one of the oldest and most significant internet-based conlangs is a fact that everybody with a remote interest in the subject knows. As for additional sources, here is a Polish article about constructed languages, in which an entire paragraph is dedicated to Verdurian. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zompist.com, with merger if necessary. Cnilep (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zompist.com. When it gets enough mention in reliable sources, it'll be put back up, if necessary. Until then a redirect is best.Drydic guy (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned in the appendix to In the Land of Invented Languages by Arika Okrent here —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeteBleackley (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From Okrent's inclusion criteria: I have only listed the projects that I mention in the text, along with a few other especially noteworthy or well-developed ones – languages that most of the highly regarded conlangers will have heard of. PeteBleackley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I take Okrent to mean that she lists on her web page the conlangs she discusses in her book. That book sounds like a better source. Does anyone have it, so that you may cite it on the Verdurian page? Cnilep (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't posted here before, but I watch Verdurian and Wikipedia from www.spinnoff.com/zbb and want to vote Keep. There are enough reliable sources on Verdurian to write a short article, plus AfD is not cleanup. Also, has anyone checked the new book In the Land of Invented Languages for references to Verdurian? From what I hear the author is really in the know about conlangs. Xeroderma Pigmentosum (talk) 03:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable, made up language. Unlike Tolkien, this guy has not millions of his books sold. Kitty555 (talk) 08:03, 22 June 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.