- 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. A version of the Esper article was userfied to User:DonaldKronos/Esper (language) in October 2013 (and TechnoZeus is aware of it, since he's edited that draft until it's almost identical to the article in question here). Anyone who wants to work on the draft can do so there. Deor ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Esper (language)
- Esper (language) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable made up language lacking support for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hello? Is the purpose of this to insult, to frustrate, or what? Am I responding to this in the right way? At least I found a link this time to a discussion page, but I do nt see how we are supposed to "discuss" anything here.
TechnoZeus ( talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the heading you made for "hello" to avoid it messing up the AfD page. In any case, the issue here is that the page does not have any coverage in reliable sources to show how the language passes notability guidelines. By reliable sources, I mean coverage in things such as academic texts, newspaper articles, and the like that discuss Esper in depth. I've been looking and so far I can't really find anything out there that would really be considered a reliable source. I can see where it exists, but not where it's ultimately notable enough for an entry. For something that's been around since the 70s, it doesn't really seem to have gained any true coverage. I'd suggest a merger into Esperanto since it's a variant of the language or at least a mention there, but so far I'm not seeing where there's enough to show where it merits its own article. I've left some information on Reddogsix's talk page, but I'd like to caution you about accusing other editors of nominating the page for deletion as a way of frustrating or insulting you or Esper. As far as reasons for deletion go, I've got a bit of a primer for the basics here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to do this right, and it is EXTREMELY frustrating. There have been many things published on Esper online, but they tend to end up deleted. Unfortunately I think it has something to do with the emotional scars inherited in the Esperanto community from the Ido incident. It is a contemporary language, so don't expect to see very old stuff on it, but I don't know where to find ANYTHING on it right now other than stuff I've made myself, and EVEN MOST OF THAT has gotten deleted! Much of it is under the name Pont, which is the other parent language of Esper. I will look around for news articles and such, but I really haven't got time to do it right away. I think this is just sickening that a person has to feel they have wasted time every time they try to add something in here that isn't so well known as to already be covered. TechnoZeus ( talk) 01:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I would recommend that TechnoZeus have this article copied to their userspace where they can work on finding sources to support it, without having to worry about the deadline for this AfD discussion. The fact that this language is not "so well known as to already be covered" is part of the problem here; a constructed language can be fairly obscure and still have an article on Wikipedia, but it does need to be known enough to have had things published about it to be used as sources for the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Move to user space and then delete. Nothing personal, TechnoZeus, but if no reliable sources are cited, it's not even relevant to discuss whether the topic is notable enough for Wikipedia. We can't keep content in article space merely out of courtesy. Peter Isotalo 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, allowing for a move to userspace, per nom. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. A version of the Esper article was userfied to User:DonaldKronos/Esper (language) in October 2013 (and TechnoZeus is aware of it, since he's edited that draft until it's almost identical to the article in question here). Anyone who wants to work on the draft can do so there. Deor ( talk) 12:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Esper (language)
- Esper (language) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable made up language lacking support for notability. reddogsix ( talk) 00:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hello? Is the purpose of this to insult, to frustrate, or what? Am I responding to this in the right way? At least I found a link this time to a discussion page, but I do nt see how we are supposed to "discuss" anything here.
TechnoZeus ( talk) 00:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've removed the heading you made for "hello" to avoid it messing up the AfD page. In any case, the issue here is that the page does not have any coverage in reliable sources to show how the language passes notability guidelines. By reliable sources, I mean coverage in things such as academic texts, newspaper articles, and the like that discuss Esper in depth. I've been looking and so far I can't really find anything out there that would really be considered a reliable source. I can see where it exists, but not where it's ultimately notable enough for an entry. For something that's been around since the 70s, it doesn't really seem to have gained any true coverage. I'd suggest a merger into Esperanto since it's a variant of the language or at least a mention there, but so far I'm not seeing where there's enough to show where it merits its own article. I've left some information on Reddogsix's talk page, but I'd like to caution you about accusing other editors of nominating the page for deletion as a way of frustrating or insulting you or Esper. As far as reasons for deletion go, I've got a bit of a primer for the basics here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how to do this right, and it is EXTREMELY frustrating. There have been many things published on Esper online, but they tend to end up deleted. Unfortunately I think it has something to do with the emotional scars inherited in the Esperanto community from the Ido incident. It is a contemporary language, so don't expect to see very old stuff on it, but I don't know where to find ANYTHING on it right now other than stuff I've made myself, and EVEN MOST OF THAT has gotten deleted! Much of it is under the name Pont, which is the other parent language of Esper. I will look around for news articles and such, but I really haven't got time to do it right away. I think this is just sickening that a person has to feel they have wasted time every time they try to add something in here that isn't so well known as to already be covered. TechnoZeus ( talk) 01:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I would recommend that TechnoZeus have this article copied to their userspace where they can work on finding sources to support it, without having to worry about the deadline for this AfD discussion. The fact that this language is not "so well known as to already be covered" is part of the problem here; a constructed language can be fairly obscure and still have an article on Wikipedia, but it does need to be known enough to have had things published about it to be used as sources for the article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Move to user space and then delete. Nothing personal, TechnoZeus, but if no reliable sources are cited, it's not even relevant to discuss whether the topic is notable enough for Wikipedia. We can't keep content in article space merely out of courtesy. Peter Isotalo 23:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, allowing for a move to userspace, per nom. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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.