Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arahau
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arahau[edit]
- Arahau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No notability, no reliable sources. As a sysop in ru.wiki I have just deleted this article from there. The articles on this subject created in many languages seem to be PR action of one person. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The only sources to attest to the language's "notability" are ones created by the author himself (possible exceptions are a page in Russian that I can't read and the page on Omniglot, which accepts submissions of any and all conlang writing systems regardless of their notability). Fails WP:RS and WP:N. I'd suggest also considering the page on the author, Ivan Karasev for deletion--I can't find much to attest to his notability either (at least in English...maybe there's some in Russian?) --Miskwito (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Arahau per nom. I was also unable to find reliable sources. By the way, is this the same Ivan V. Karasev who edited "The reconstruction of agriculture in Pskov oblast 1945–1953"? I've not read it, but it turned up in my search. Cnilep (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is another person. He published two books of fiction and claimed that they were widely discussed in some Russian regional periodics. It is possible and not so easy to check. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note! Andrei Romanenko known as the killer of interesting articles and operates from revenge as is noticed in dishonesty and the question on deprivation of the rights of the manager Russian Wikipedia is considered.Neemus (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note: making personal attacks against the one who proposed deletion is not going to help your case.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge: :The language should be clearly be merged with the Ivan Karasev article. Subsequently that article should be mended to show whether Ivan Karasev is himself notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. If he is not then the language material should be deleted with his article. Currently the Ivan Karasev article does not demonstrate notability of its subject, nor does it even claim that he is notable. This should be corrected. Finding third party sources mentioning him would be a good step on the way.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally speaking, merging could be a solution. But we should keep into consideration that this solution was proposed a year and a half ago, and still nothing has been done. It means that the main author of both articles does not support this idea while no other user is interested in the subject. Under these circumstances I would suppose that the most reasonable way is to delete this article and then perhaps consider deletion of Ivan Karasev, though that is not so clear case. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete according to nominator. No notability or third-party sources at all. --RedAndr (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This conlang proposal has no dictionary. It is merely a vague idea of a new language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry... Arahau-Russian Dictionaty (near 3.000 words) Neemus (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It doesn't matter whether it's a good or complete language, or whether it's been well-documented by its creator. What matters is if it's notable for Wikipedia--i.e., has been reasonably well-documented by sources not affiliated with its creator. --Miskwito (talk) 01:32, 12 May 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.