This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete

Keep votes accepted: IJzeren Jan, malathion, Almafeta, Grace Note, arj, Phroziac,

Keep votes not accepted (and reasons why): Assdl (only 44 edits, mostly to conlang articles), Firespeaker (only 37 edits), Elemtilas (only 17 edits, all to conlang vfd debates), BenctPhilipJonsson (only 8 edits), SamuelRiv (only 4 edits, all to conlang vfd debates), one unsigned keep vote

Delete votes accepted: ishwar, mikka, MH, Wile E. Heresiarch, Angr, Prosfilaes, Mustafaa, Felix the Cassowary, The Literate Engineer, Trilobite, Sjakkalle, Indrian,

-- Francs2000 | Talk  12:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. – ishwar  (speak) 15:30, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Keep - If you delete this article, please proceed and remove all the constructed languages that appear in this list. If you delete this one, but keep the others, it'll be unfair. I think this kind of articles is worth enough, and they hurt no one. Thanks. Assdl 15:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But more edits about this particular subject than you did. --IJzeren Jan 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think that if someone would like information on a conlang, there's no reason Wikipedia shouldn't be a place to start. -Firespeaker 18:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has made less than 50 edits. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has been here since March 30 though...
• Delete, nonnotable. MH 18:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: vanity, advert, nonnotable. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:25, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotoable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: of all the conlang articles listed, I've never heard of it even in my time in the conlang community, and there's nothing significant about it, or anyone who's felt it important enough to translate it into other Wikipedias. --Prosfilaes 20:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and all other members of Category:Ill Bethisad. - Mustafaa 20:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several other of the members of Category:Ill Bethisad are up for VfD, but they aren't so certain of deletion. Each of those articles is going to have to be dealt with individually. --Prosfilaes 21:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Brithenig might be notable enough to survive, actually; the rest should go, though. - Mustafaa 22:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If some of these articles are certain, perhaps they can all be merged into the Ill Bethisad article to make one large, but solid, article? Almafeta 04:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable enough for me. --IJzeren Jan 23:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not the standard here --malathion ^talk 23:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Felix the Cassowary 01:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per CONLANG, no points of notability (#189 most popular out of top 200 on Langmaker). Almafeta 01:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Part of understanding Brithenig, which is notable (see its VfD page for why). Almafeta 04:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this the case? The Brithenig article barely mentiones Breathanach, and if the Breathanach article is necessary for the understanding of Brithenig, shouldn't they be combined? dhasenan 1734, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of having, now or ever, been a vernacular for any sized group of people. No pop culture notability, as per Klingon. No academic notability, as due to the fact that I couldn't find a reference to it after searching over a half dozen scholarly journals' online editions. Not even the bizarre quasi-notability of having spawned other misbegotten conlangs the way Brithenig claims to have. The Literate Engineer 06:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas
• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas
• Keep. Harmless nonsense. Has been around for a while and is of interest to those who are interested in this stuff. Grace Note 05:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Here is a fine example of how artists inspire each other. Conlanging is a very sociable art form, whose participants love to exchange ideas and inspiration. The creation of Brethanach, inspired by Brithenig, shows this at work.
• Delete. Nonnotable conlang. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. BenctPhilipJonsson 19:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Constructed languages are not inherently notable, and notability is not estabished in this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable in the context of constructed languages. arj 12:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Notability is somewhat on the questionable side, 528 google hits on "Breathanach language". But, I think that's notable enough, and, vfd'ing all conlangs because "its a goofy way to spend your life" is a goofy way to spend your life. Wikipedia is not paper. --Phroziac (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet the high bar of notability for a conlang. Indrian 20:43, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why is there are a "high bar of notability for a conlang" as opposed to anything else, and where is this bar? --Prosfilaes 22:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability being subjective, this is my own personal opinion that you are free to disagree with. We all set the bar in different places. Indrian 00:13, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After reading through the deletion policy in its entirety, it seems clear that this article has a place here. SamuelRiv 16:41, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.