- 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 speedy delete. NW (Talk) 03:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ridiculously long article about a conlang with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Not only does it briefly explain it, but it gives the linguistic structure. OK, that's great - host it on Google Pages or something. We aren't a webhost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Copyvio from [1]. There you also see that it is a) WP:OR and b) something invented one day (although by an academic, it seems). So nominated. --Pgallert (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Copyright issues and notability issues are forefront here. Looks like another attempt to use WP to draw attention to a subject that hasn't met academic criteria. Angryapathy (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: as per Pgallert. GreyWyvern⚒ 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Obliterate for obvious copyvio. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2009 (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.