Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lara language

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

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. Redwolf24 (talk) 04:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lara language

edit

A constructed language with a few problems. Firstly there is actually a language called Lara spoken by about 12,000 people in Indonesia [1] however this is not it. I can only find a handful of google hits associated with this particular language, and most of those are conlang websites that can be edited by the user. Also the author of this article readily admits on his talk page that he is the original author of the language in question. The other pages that are linked to from the article (Esperanto, Italian and Wikisource) were each started on 27th July, 25th August and 27th August respectively. I'm just not getting the impression from my research into this that it's that notable. Francs2000 | Talk 14:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - non-notable language not in common use. Rob Church Talk | Desk 15:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable; original research; silly --Quasipalm 15:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Friday (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No sillier than many articles. I see that Google is still the main arbiter. 212.101.64.4 16:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Invented languages should be included if they are notable for academic (e.g., interesting and discussed example) or cultural (e.g., Klingon, etc.) reasons, even if those reasons are minor. No claim to notability exists here. Sdedeo 17:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For a language to be notable it needs to have an impact on the world outside the home of its creator, i.e. having a significant and verifiable number of fluent speakers and/or being the subject of a rather extensive professional discussion, preferrably in printed media. A list of words, however long, should not be enough. However, there are obviously Wikipedians of a different opinion, which is why I'd like to urge anyone voting to delete this article to check out the straw poll being held at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes where an attempt is made to create general criteria for inclusion of constructed languages. This vote might very well end up with any language with X number of words, or even "a unique script"(!), being deemed worthy of a Wikipedia article. / Alarm 17:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please start by checking out the discussion about the draft policy proposal on Wikipedia:Conlangs and various subpages. I agree that some of the criteria some people have proposed are a bit silly, but you'll notice most if not all of the silly ones are getting a lot more oppose votes than support votes (oops, I used the word "vote"; Messrs. Bruning and Forrester are going to pile on to me...) even from the conlangers. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Mind, the long list on Wikipedia:Conlangs/Votes and on Wikipedia:Conlangs/Alternative proposal should by no means by treated as a proposal of criteria, all of which can individually determine a language's notability. It's merely a collection of possible criteria proposed by individual people. The purpose of the whole discussion is merely to establish some objective criteria for conlang notability. As someone who cares for conlangs and to whom it is an important field of interest, I want a conlang section that is clean and of high quality; I do not want to be overly inclusive, and I definitely do not want articles about 1200 individual conlangs. To me, number of words and a unique script do not make a language notable. And yes, some of the proposed criteria are a bit sillyl. By the way, Alarm, I find it strange that you only urge "anyone voting to delete this article" and not those who want to keep it. I would agree with you if you urged "anybody", not just the deleters. --IJzeren Jan 13:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Dottore So 17:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, but see the article I hope to start from Lara called Lara (language), and help solve disambig problems! Trollderella 17:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, made up non-languages would need to jump very high before they warrant an entry in a ssdgkdsfdssdj. (That's Splashian for 'encyclopedia'.) -Splash 19:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm very hesitant in this case, because indeed the language looks interesting and complete. The fact that the author of the language is also the author of the article (and also of the articles in other wikipedias) + the smallish number of ghits is decisive for me. --IJzeren Jan 05:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please not that this is the only Wikipedia. The word "wikipedia" is not a generic term. Zoe 07:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - non notable language with no uptake or real recognition. Barneyboo 21:11, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for a conlang to be noteworthy, it needs a LOT of notoriety outside its circle, in the mass media, etc. Klingon, Esperanto, and Tolkien's works fulfill those criteria, almost nothing else does. Which is as it should be. --Agamemnon2 21:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or I'll make up a dozen languages and submit those as articles. Groeck 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Jachin 22:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frlyrh, which is Delete in my personal constructed language which, by amazing coincidence, also happens to be called 'Lara'. Nandesuka 23:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable, original research, vanity. --Carnildo 23:44, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -Sean Curtin 02:17, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn, or. --Etacar11 02:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as soon as there is a page for the natural language Lara this page will be quite harmless. Also, it is better written and more interesting than most conlang pages on wikipedia, in fact more interesting than quite a few stubs, so why not keep it?--Kaleissin 09:48:13, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
    • So if it's well written nonsense, the fact that it's nonsense means nothing to you? Fabulous, I'll go and write some now. -- Francs2000 | Talk 10:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What's your problem? There's got to be more worthwhile things to do than being rude to people. Please define nonsense while you're at it. --Kaleissin 12:22:25, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
        • My problem is your reason for saying (implied) keep - by your reasoning the article should be kept because it is well written, not because of its content. I can point to plenty of articles that are about notable content but just not well written - should they go? If I wrote beautiful prose about the contents of my trash should that stay? No, so if you believe the content should stay because you feel it is notable enough for Wikipedia then say that, don't confuse the issue by saying "it's well written so it should stay" -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:49, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's best having a page that is 2 out of 2. This one is 1 out of 2, but there are tons of pages that are 0 out of 2... After Kim Bruning's nuking of the conlang-vote page I'm not sure I'll ever bother to be explicit here again. No keep, no delete, means no vote right? Ergo no drive-by shooting. Whatever, it's academical now anyway. --Kaleissin 18:47:26, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
  • Delete Transwiki to the Conlang Wikicity and then delete from Wikipedia. Google search for {lara "constructed language"} [2] gets 42 hits but almost none of them relate to this particular conlang - most just have the personal name or surname "Lara" or a word in some other conlang with the form |lara| somewhere on the page. I see no evidence that this conlang has notability within the conlanger community, much less outside of it. Nor is it verifiable without original research, as apparently nobody has written about it yet besides the creator of the language. If in the course of years the language does become notable (aquires some speakers, a fairly large corpus, independent review and discussion in the secondary conlang literature, etc.) then any article about it should probably be titled Lara (constructed language) to distinguish it from Lara language, the natural language of Indonesia with the same name. But it is a non-stub article, fairly well written for a non-native speaker of English, and it's good content for the Conlang Wikicity. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see that 80.127.232.138 has already copied the page to the Conlang Wikicity [3]. I have no objection to deleting this Wikipedia article at any time now. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally believe googling for {lara "constructed language"} is unfair, because you exclude anything that is not in English. In cases like this one (especially since the creator of the language is Italian) I much rather google for LANGUAGE NAME + SURNAME OF THE CREATOR. In this case, "lara" + "pedicelli" generates 72 ghits. --IJzeren Jan 13:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point; we should probably cover that and similar issues when treating the "gets at least N Google hits" criterion in the draft Conlang notability/verifiability policy.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lara_language&oldid=1137980692"