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 delete. Wizardman 17:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia Esperanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is certainly rich in academic phraseology. However, it not only lacks specific sources, but also lacks specific content. For instance, it claims that 'multimedia esperanto' aims at 'accessibility and semantic understanding of multimedia contents for every human independently of sensual or cognitive deficiencies'. All sounds very nice, but specifically what 'sensual or cognitive deficiencies' are meant? Is this 'multimedia esperanto' meant to help the blind, the deaf, the intellectually handicapped... ? Really I think it's a comparatively sophisticated parody - the author has mixed a few phrases about Jungian psychology with some esperanto related words and miscellaneous academic expressions, to see whether and when anyone will notice that there s actually nothing here... Kalidasa 777 (talk) 12:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC) See below - I no longer think it's a parody. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:OR and it does meet WP:N. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- I am not able to access the sources, so I cannot say much about them. However, the one that I managed to get to has no relation whatsoever to the article. It comprises a schedule of a programme carried out by some ICCHP institute, nothing about the "10th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs" as mentioned. They are not even sources, just a series of links about exhibitions. Besides, I cannot see the connection between the exhibitions and the article's main content. And there is no evidence that proves the article right. Literally, there are no footnotes, references, nothing. I agree with Kalidasa that the author may have been just mixing a bunch of words together. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete'. The website (no CSS in Wayback, looks awful) doesn't seem to have been online for some time (only archived once). Haindl is certainly verifiable as an academic in the discipline[1]. But it doesn't have much in the way of independent coverage, so pretty flatly fails WP:N/WP:SOFTWARE. --Dhartung | Talk 13:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The reference you've found verifies that Haindl has written in the area of strategies for the blind. It doesn't verify that he has worked on a language 'whose letters are composed of specific, auxiliary visual patterns, called Visual Archetypes', as the Wikipedia article claims.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Don't put words in my mouth. It proves he isn't a hoax. --Dhartung | Talk 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. But you're right - he exists, he's not a hoax. And I've just found a document on the web which confirms that someone of that name really does have a project called Multimedia Esperanto. [2]. So I'm taking down the 'suspected hoax' box I put on the page yesterday. The remaining issue with the article is what you've pointed out - lack of independent coverage.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yeah, this is/was a real research project, just not a notable one. It's not that far off from things being worked on at the Media Lab and similar think tanks. In the Powerpoint presentation on the ICCHP page, I personally think the last half has a lot of hand-waving, and it's probably not surprising they ran out of steam in implementation, but the initial ideas have some currency in the assistive technology world. This one just didn't get anywhere (which is too bad, even if it probably wouldn't have worked, it's still interesting). Bottom line, though: not notable.--Dhartung | Talk 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of course, all deaf people understand Esperanto; you just have to shout at them in it. It does seem to be classic original research, given that the external links don't really say much to confirm the representations of the article. It also seems to be a case of an extended mixed metaphor, claiming that media have their own "grammar". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All media do have a grammar. This is terminology that is commonly used in academic settings. --Dhartung | Talk 14:52, 20 March 2008 (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.