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.--Húsönd 00:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dousha[edit]

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

A non-notable constructed language supposedly invented in 2002. Nothing in the article is attributed to reliable sources. Google scholar returns 0 relevant hits. Google returns 12,000 hits for Dousha as a fairly common proper noun, but few of these refer to the language, and scanning through the first few pages yielded no reliable sources. proposed deletion contested by anon IP. Delete Aagtbdfoua 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable.OysterGuitarst 03:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not for made up gibberish languages. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a place to publish original research Corpx 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Translation from the original language was requested in April. From what I can tell, there are more sources in the original article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 05:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The source article is on the Portuguese wiki. The references are: the official website, a page on Langmaker (anyone can make one), one japanese and two hungarian grammar articles (that do not mention Dousha), another site that purports to have various materials with examples for helping to learn the language (I get a blank page when I accessed this), a link to an internet forum with 4 registered users, a link to Dousha on another wiki, and a downloadable dictionary from a geocities site. None of these constitute reliable sources. - Aagtbdfoua 12:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. For a precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toki Pona no longer has a Wikipedia article. Perhaps you meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (2nd nomination)? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While Almir U. Junior may someday be a reknowned linguist, he or she isn't there yet. It's nice to see someone who thinks that an international language should be even more complicated than anything that currently exists:

"Verbs are conjugated by tense, voice and mood. Each one has six participle forms, and also six infinitives." Future generations of high school students will be grateful if this becomes this Dousha is disposed of. Mandsford 14:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of non-self-published sources to establish notability of subject. The original article in Portuguese is not any better in this regard, as Aagtbdfoua explained. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless multiple reliable sources can be found. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete referenced do not assert notability (they in fact serve to tarnish its notability), keep only if some scholarly article can be referenced (any constructed language of note will be mentioned in a scholarly article). Tdmg 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:57, 5 July 2007 (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.