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

Keep votes accepted: Almafeta, IJzeren Jan, Badlydrawnjeff, Sonjaaa, Grace Note, Prosfilaes, arj

Keep votes not accepted and reasons why: Assdl (only 44 edits, mostly to conlang articles), Elemtilas (only 17 edits, all to conlang vfd debates), 24.71.223.140 (not logged in), BenctPhilipJonsson (only 8 edits)

Delete votes accepted: mikka, Wile E. Heresiarch, ishwar, Angr, Jon Harald Søby, DNicholls, Capitalistroadster, Felix the Cassowary, Uppland, Trilobite, Indrian, drini, Joolz, Jim Henry

-- Francs2000 | Talk 13:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fyksland[edit]

Fyksland was nominated for deletion on 2004-04-07. The result of the discussion was no consensus. It was nominated again on 2004-05-03. The result of the discussion was again no consensus. For the prior VFD discussions, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fyksland/Archive.

Fyksian was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-08. The result of the discussion was to merge into Fyksland. For the prior VFD discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fyksian.

del. Nonnotable constructed language. mikka (t) 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Destroy all micronations and their conlangs. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. i dont think it is notable either. – ishwar  (speak) 19:17, 2005 July 23 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the website about it is totaly fiction, having "news articles" stating that "President Bush declares his deep regret about the Fyksian soldiers killed in Afghanistan" and so on. Just fiction. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 20:50, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that all fiction should be deleted? Then we might as well start with Shakespeare, Goethe and Tolkien! --IJzeren Jan 07:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm saying that all fiction presented as reality should be deleted. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 19:19, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? Most fiction take place in real world setting, with world events and famous people as backdrop. How is alternative history any less worthy than other works of fiction? --24.71.223.140 00:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting it as truth is the problem. Even when noting that it's a made up state and all, it leads to easy confusion. Besides, there are still the issues of notability and verifiability. --DNicholls 02:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is the worst argument I've seen in these discussions. If the article might suggest the Fyksland and its language are really existing entities, that should obviously be fixed. But that does not warrant deletion. If the website of Fyksland suggests it is a really existing thing, that's an entirely different matter; most works of fiction do. --IJzeren Jan 07:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm crushed. But I was arguing less against this specific article there and more against alt.history=any fiction. In this context, it's probably out of line, and I should have let it slide. Either way, there's still notability and verifiability, both of which do pertain to this article, and seem to stack against it. 500 Google hits and a curiosity article do not an encyclopedic entry make. --DNicholls 07:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you admit to your error. Regarding verifiability: isn't even a single google hit sufficient, provided that it directs you to the right place? Regarding notability: it has long been established that this is too subjective to be useful as a criterion. To a person interested in the field (and unless I'm mistaken, WP is there for people interested in all kind of fields), this is definitely an interesting article. --IJzeren Jan 07:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, a single Google hit is not enough to verify anything. Low verifiability is a serious problem, as is low notability, and risks turning WP into both an indiscriminate and incorrect collection of personal web pages.--DNicholls 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am very mistaken about the meaning of the word "verifiable" in English (it's not my L1, not even my L2), it means that proof can be found that something actually exists. If one link directs you to a description, a grammar and a dictionary, that makes the language verifiable enough for me. Same goes for the Fyksian conculture. Notability, like I said elsewhere, is an entirely different can of worms. --IJzeren Jan 21:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note on my earlier argument. The article should not be placed in Category:Microstates, which lists microstates in the real world. Placing Fyksland in that category would be like putting Hary Potter in the category British people, if you see what I mean. Jon Harald Søby \ ^{no na} 13:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete.--DNicholls 22:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and some of it is patent nonsense namely claims to membership of the EU and UN. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Felix the Cassowary 01:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Already survived VfDs. Almafeta 01:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How many VfDs are really necessary before an item is finally safe? --IJzeren Jan 07:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Uppland 14:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, I feel a strong sense of outrage at all this unexplained witch-hunt against artistic conlangs. Assdl 14:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated.

Regarding fictional news articles, etc. -- Ill Bethisad uses those too to describe the present history of the constructed world. Such things réally have no part in Wikipedia. I'm sure there's an article about fictional worlds or even micronations from which the Fyskland webpage can be linked. Elemtilas

• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas

• Keep, given the multiple VfD survivals. --Badlydrawnjeff 21:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep! :) --Sonjaaa 22:26, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. How many more VFD's does it need? I don't mind an article merge for the time being but this is getting ridiculous. Look at the edit history, there are certainly interest out there for this article. --24.71.223.140 01:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If it has already passed VfD, there's no reason not to keep it.Grace Note 05:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. BenctPhilipJonsson 19:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: it's survived three VfD's; surely there's better things to be doing than putting the same article up for VfD over and over. The decision has been made; move on.--Prosfilaes 21:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme prejudice. Just look at the article. How has this sat around for so long in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? — Trilobite (Talk) 11:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Provides valuable, factual information. arj 12:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utter rubbish that can destroy the reputation of an encyclopedia if left unchecked. Indrian 20:54, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete it's all one man fuction. If it survived three vfds isbecause of no consensus (not for deleting BUT alo not either for keeping). drini ☎ 22:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How many VfDs are necessary before an article can finally be considered "safe"? You find it non-notable? Fine, then don't read it and keep watching your own stuff! Evidently, there are enough other Wikipedians who dó find it notable, and I can't think of a single reason why they should be denied the possibility of having it. Why can't you just accept that? --IJzeren Jan 06:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest delete vote I can possibly give - forget the other VfDs, it may have survived them but I'm only interested in this one. This is an unnotable, unverifiable micronation/conlang/figment of somebody's imagination, it has no place on wikipedia. I can see absolutely no evidence that Fyksland has acheived any prominence, noteworthiness, or anything. -- Joolz 22:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All nonsense, Joolz, and you know it. Before you start shooting at an article, take at least the effort to read it first! For the list time: Fyksland is nót a micronation; it ís verifiable; and at least to some it dóes have noteworthiness! And what's wrong with something being the project of somebody's imagination? Are you also going to delete the Brandenburg concertos, Mona Lisa and Star Trek, Joolz? --IJzeren Jan 06:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Fyskland might be ideosyncratic and all that, but it's certainly no worse (not to mention much more sensible) than the heaps of scrap metal they call "modern art"! Elemtilas

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought it was an actual micronation! All of those examples there are notable (aren't aren't just figments of imagination, the Mona Lisa is a real painting), whereas Fyksland is not. A google search reveals very little and it shows no sign that it's notable, it's had no coverage in any media or notable sources. -- Joolz 14:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia just a figment of the imagination? It, like Fyksland, is just a website. Would it help if someone printed the website out?--Prosfilaes 19:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nearly all of the Google hits seem to be (1) Wikipedia mirrors, (2) pages on the official Fyksland site, (3) brief mentions of and links to said site, or (4) mailing list messages from the creator of Fyksland. If someone presents evidence that Fyksland and/or Fyskian have been influential on other conworlds and conlangs I may consider changing my vote. I wouldn't mind seeing a sentence or two about them in constructed world or artistic language, however. --Jim Henry | Talk 03:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should consider discussing and voting on a Wikipedia policy on criteria for inclusion of conlangs? Almafeta's conlang notability criteria might be a good starting point. Where would be the appropriate place to propose/discuss such a new policy? --Jim Henry | Talk 04:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IJzeren Jan suggested (on the Brithenig VfD page) that we start the discussion on Talk:Constructed language. As far as I know that is a good place to discuss the draft policy, but I'm not sure about how to go about proposing it as a policy and getting it voted on, once the people discussing the draft have some consensus on what policy to propose. Maybe we should copy Almafeta's conlang notability criteria to Talk:Constructed language/Conlang notability criteria or Talk:Constructed language/Conlang article inclusion policy draft, and then let people revise the draft and comment (in the main talk page) on the reasons for their proposed revisions, etc...? --Jim Henry | Talk 16:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been going on at Wikipedia:Conlangs. --Jim Henry | Talk 21:03, 1 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.