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 of the debate was DeleteHappyCamper 02:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We need good NPOV articles about notable conlangs. This is a POV article about a non-notable conlang. DenisMoskowitz 14:57, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a google search returns only 201 entries, of which over 5 of the top 20 are Wikipedia sites, non-notable conlang --Reflex Reaction 19:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix to NPOV. Who are you do say a language even conlang is insignificant to be on WP? What's the scale to judge with? I'm not an adept of any conlang, but an article about this one doesn't hurt WP as long as it's NPOV ---moyogo 06:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1. It's not NPOV, it seems to be a clumsily translated advertisement. If you can fix that, please go ahead.
2. As an editor, I have as much right to say something is insignificant as anyone else.
3. IMHO, Wikipedia doesn't need to contain every pet project known to a circle of friends (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). There are certainly notable conlangs (those known by large numbers of people, those that influence other conlangs, those that appear in mass media, etc.) but with the evidence available to me, this doesn't appear to be one. DenisMoskowitz 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Honestly, I've been thinking this over for quite a while. It was me who put the ((NPOV))-tag in the first place, then asked some questions on Talk:Kotava and brought up the topic on Talk:Constructed language#Kotava. The language seems to have a small community of users indeed, but consensus says that that alone does not make a conlang notable enough for inclusion. The number of Google hits, on the other hand, speaks out firmly against inclusion. Unfortunately, I didn't get any reply to my remarks about the POV character of the article, nor to my questions about what else would make the language notable. I would probably have abstained if the writer of the article had at least taken the effort to remove the propagandistic elements, but its current contents, in combination with a lack of convincing arguments regarding notability, make it pretty impossible for me to vote otherwise than delete. --IJzeren Jan 10:14, 31 October 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.