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. There is unanimous consensus that the article does not bear sufficient notability to stand alone as its own page. However there's no strong agreement on whether or not to merge or simply delete. Given that, the most reasonable solution seems to be to delete the article and allow for a redirect or merge to be made at a later time if deemed appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Eldarin[edit]

Neo-Eldarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. The accompanying article on literature was deleted over a year ago after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Eldarin literature. This is basically the languages used by Tolkien fans when writing new texts, expanding the languages devised by Tolkien. While the original languages by Tolkine are notable (and not up for deletion), these are not made by him, have not received any significant attention in reliable sources, and thus fail WP:N completely. No Google news or books hits. Fram (talk) 08:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge at least some parts of it into Elvish languages (Middle-earth) – or is there a more appropriate article on Tolkien fandom? —Tamfang (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I agree with Tamfang, parts of the article could incorporated into other articles about this subject.--MaximilianT (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - inline citations appear to be only to original Tolkien creations; no citations to third-party work on these new creations. Oppose merge because no content on Neo-Eldarin is cited to third-party sources; entirety of the coverage of this new work is original research, which we ought not to be shoveling to another article. If someone can point out citations to or just evidence of third-party coverage of this topic, I'd probably reconsider my opposition to a merge (that said, I'm not putting this discussion on my watchlist; please give a heads-up on my talk page if it seems warranted). --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Carl Hostetter's essay "Elvish As She Is Spoke" counts as third-party, at least. —Tamfang (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing is said about this topic in secondary sources, so Wikipedia should say nothing about it. Abductive (reasoning) 01:44, 30 December 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.