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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Votgil[edit]

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

Article about a two-year-old constructed language, which is sourced only to the creator's own self-published content about it and which offers no reliably sourced evidence that it actually has any widespread usage in any noteworthy real world context. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform for people to promote their own new creations — a new invented language can get into Wikipedia if it's getting media coverage already, but does not get a freebie just because it exists. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, no indication of notability per WP:GNG and no significant coverage online from WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't this should be deleted since everything is from a credible source and I have removed any misleading info. HorseSnack (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are not sources that can support a topic's notability, and neither is the creator's own self-published content about it. This isn't a question of whether the facts are suspect or not — obviously the creator wouldn't lie about the content of his own creation — but there's a big difference between being able to verify that a thing exists and being able to properly demonstrate that an encyclopedia should concern itself with that thing's existence. The latter requires reliable source coverage in media which are independent of the topic's own PR efforts. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to FrathWiki, it would be a much better fit. Besides, there has been no sign that Jack "Ostracod" Eisenmann has knowledge of or an opinion on this article one way or another, and he is no longer 'maintaining' that language, having moved on to other projects; therefore there is little incentive to keep it. Furthermore, the article title itself is in error, as V0tgil orthagraphy dictates that 'o' makes a sound like "vote", and 0 or ö makes a sound like "bought", which is the sound the negation part of speech 'v0t' is supposed to make. When moved to FrathWiki, the article title should be 'V0tgil'. Anyway, as far as Wikipedia goes, I agree with the nomination: not notable enough in a global encyclopedic context. Arlo James Barnes 07:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki Sounds like a good idea. HorseSnack (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bazj (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G3/A11 - author's been blocked indef for socking and hoaxing Bazj (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there are not even minimal signs of even minimal notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 3 February 2016 (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.