Tally: I count 9 delete, 1 keep, and 2 comments. I'll delete these two articles now. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:56, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another conlang article. Heck, these people are making all of us conlangers look bad. - Cymydog Naakka 02:26, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC) Note: Forgot to log in!

...and its non-notable author. (Sorry, Cymydog, my bad.) Mikkalai 06:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• But they are making micronation folks look a little better. ;)--Samuel J. Howard 01:27, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Another note -- John Quijada was added by User:Mikkalai, not me. He also added a couple of extra words before my signature, making it look like I wrote them. (You shouldn't do that, Mikkalai...) However I do vote for the deletion of both articles. - Cymydog Naakka 09:57, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Hmm, Not only that, but a conlang based on speedtalk . . . dearie me. Delete. Lacrimosus 02:46, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Fluggernuff -- that's my own conlang for "I've had enough of private manias placed in public spaces as if they were of the utmost concern to scholars and students, perhaps out of a deeply seated mental illness that prevents the distinguishing of subjective and objective and perhaps only out of hostility at the indifference of the world." As you can tell, my language is very concise. Geogre 04:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Like I said, these people are making all of us conlangers look bad! No, we are not mentally ill, thank you very much, George, and most of us are quite capable of distinguishing subjective and objective. Don't start insulting an entire group of people because of the deeds of one. Conlangery is not a disease, it's an art form; and conlangs are works of art, not concoctions of an ill mind. - Cymydog Naakka 10:08, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh, come on! It was just a joke, and it was about private vanity on Wikipedia, not about conlangs. The UFOlogy people, the "secret history" people, that kind of thing. There are perfectly sane conlangs just as there are perfectly sane revisionist historians. I was joking about the fringe, not the body. Sorry if it appeared otherwise. Geogre 13:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um, Geogre, that was a bit over the top. I think that it would make vfd more effective, and more efficient, if we could stick to neutral language; it helps avoid flamewars. It would cut down on the entertainment value of vfd, true enough -- I suspect that's a good thing. Fwiw, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:21, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete both. There are zillions of conlangs over the web now. BTW, I'm wondering whether John is a descendant of Don Quixote (Quijada was the true name.) That would make him much more notable. Mikkalai 05:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both: nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:48, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both. Non notable. A language needs either a long history, or a lot of people using it, preferably both. These appear to have neither. Average Earthman 09:34, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete both. Non-notable, vanity, personal research. Ithkuil makes the language appear to be non-notable. And the John Quijada page has the appearance of a vanity page. Neither page sketches the background of other languages and other constructors of language against which the reader could say "That is notable." ---Rednblu 20:24, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Making up languages is too common. And the articles look like promotion. No good. Jallan 17:46, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• (I forgot to sign in yesterday.)
• Keep it. Ithkuil is an amazing language, if you would only give it a chance, George. I'm a conlanger, and it's a form of art. You don't have to insult us. BTW, Ithkuil wasn't based on Speedtalk; John Quijada didn't know about it until about twenty years after he started his language.
  • From the Langmaker.com link: "In July, 2004, Ithkuil was described in an article entitled "The Speed of Thought" by Stanislav Kozlovskiy in the Russian-language popular science magazine "Komputerra" which apparently has a readership of about 50,000 persons."
• AFAIK that's Wikipedia policy: if a conlang (for ex.) was mentioned in a magazine or something, it's considered "notable". Trebor1990 20:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That's not. Mikkalai 06:58, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• This is actually a really interesting conlang. Very well done. However, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia unless it starts being notable. Delete. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 01:04, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
• Perhaps this could be moved to a "Notable Conlangs" page? Although its not notable outside of the conlanging world, it is notorious within it. --Vlad 09:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)