Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Greek language

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. The discussion is dominated by the author of the article, why essentially puts forward the argument that it is currently difficult to determine whether the language has a potential to become notable. This argument has been raised before on many occasions, and the answer to it is WP:CRYSTAL. Other participants of the discussion argue that the article fails WP:N since no reliable sources describe its subject.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Free Greek language[edit]

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

Contested PROD. There is no indication that this conlang meets the notability requirements at WP:GNG. All of the external links are from a source closely associated with the subject; there are no independent sources at all. The lengthy diatribe on the talk page, which begins, "Thank you ANGR for giving me the prompt to explain why this article is truly notable", does not explain in the slightest why the conlang is notable at all. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that the topic satisfies general notability; indeed, there is fairly clear indication that it does not. Per the page, the constructed language is "used only by its maker". All of the sources listed are self-published (via academia.edu) papers by the language's creator. 888gowinda's crystal ball foresees that the language will be widespread among the Greek diaspora, but future events cannot be verified with currently available resources. Cnilep (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "used only by its maker" refers to active use until now, but lots of people already use it by reading and understanding texts in it, that is passive usage if we can call it so. Also, people who have seen texts in it say it is similar to the Greek language as used by those who learn Greek without knowing the grammar. Of course, it is natural for a new language to have few active users, especially if some people do everything to bury it e.g. by not allowing it to appear in Wikipedia. If you know what you r reading, there IS NOWHERE (except in your own estimates) ANY PREDICTION about any future usage; there is only description of usefulness, not only by the diaspora; there are many people of non Greek origin who want to learn Greek for many reasons, e.g. lots of immigrants, people related to Greeks, or simply those who love the Greek language or culture and want to access it. What we currently have, and that cannot change, is that an artificial and extremely difficult language, QAThARÉWUSA, has dominated all aspects of life in Greece; this does not consist a prediction, but it surely shows how EASY it is for the Free Greek Language to be widespread, IF support comes to overcome the opposition. When i m entangled in this dialog, i feel there is so strong bias against Greek language, since there are so many English based controlled languages as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_natural_language and all of them are not used in real life, but all of them are conspicuous in Wikipedia, and some of them have become Wikipedia languages too, not because they all were important, but because Wikipedia and some other influencial institutions made them to pose as important. That bias is what proves (in the present, not in the future) that the FreeGreek is really important, that is why some people are already afraid of it.

All the artificial and controlled languages have one creator; this means they all started from one person. And some are practically in fluent use by one only person still; in toki pona active speakers are "3 said to be fluent (2007), and Several dozen with internet chat ability". But as for FreeGreek, all Greeks can use it fluently, or at least all Greeks can chat in it, because it only takes 10 minutes to learn it, if one knows the Greek vocabulary (that is, all Greeks). To see the attitudes to FreeGreek, search the web with "Ελεύθερο Ελληνικό Γλώσσα", and you will find that only 1 or 2 mock it, and that without arguments, only because they think simplicity is poverty (in terms of grammatical possibilities, it is no poverty); you will not find anyone who finds it hard to understand or even speak it. If you delete it, i will find 2 friends who can present themselves so we can say we are 3 fluent speakers so we have the right to put it again on Wikipedia on equal rights with Toki Pona. In fact it is not really equal rights: Toki Pona can never be used internationally, as it is already stated on its page: there is no such purpose. While FreeGreek not only can be used, but it also NOTABLE, because it CAN save the Greek language (surely i cannot say if it WILL), if the bias can be overcome. And yes, at least one friend of mine and myself actively use the FreeGreek language with a person new to Greece, who usually does not understand ordinary Greek but understands FreeGreek. So, if it is deleted, we shall put it back on. By the way, the Systematic language, which is really a constructed one, although it is too new to have a number of fluent speakers, is better than all other conlangs, so it deserves to be on Wikipedia, and then it has a CHANCE to make real friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 20:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some details, the first publications about FreeGreek were on www.sch.gr (the Greek schools network); then a number of literary works (mainly story telling) appeared on www.stixoi.info (a site to upload poetry or even prose, were readers comments are enabled): the readers' comment were very positive here, except for a man who said that authorization of FreeGreek will make the ordinary Greek extinct! this is in some way showing that FreeGreek can have much appeal. Then, there were a few publications (in English) on http://elewthero.livejournal.com and after that on http://academia.edu. It seems i ought to explain these in the main article, because this omission has created some misunderstandings. All right, i will add this information on the main article.

I apologize if i talked angrily here: it is true i had to improve the article, and i improved it as i could so far, but the deletion template gave me a shock that made me behave less polite than i use to. Yes, more things ought to be done for FreeGreek, and the article ought to be corrected, but not deleted. Now excuse me, i m going to upload another diatribe written in FreeGreek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 12:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is some indication that the language is notable. Has it been in the news? Has anyone heard of it apart from adverts by its creator or users? — kwami (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kwamikagami, i have tried to answer that in the section "Creation of FreeGreek and first reactions" of the main article. Of course, apart from these, there are indeed many people who know of it because they found it on the web or from oral communication; for example, even yesterday i uploaded a text here http://www.stixoi.info/stixoi.php?info=Poems&act=details&poem_id=212368 and has already attracted comments, but i cannot cite everyone who says something about the FreeGreek in a web comment or orally. That lady (mother of the girl who has christened my daughter) who is currently living in the U.S. of America and teaching Greek and coordinating some teachers of Greece, she has said that indeed Greek language has practically died in the diaspora (America, Australia, etc., well, this is a common opinion of all those who know the diaspora, but then she has said that the government is not likely to officialize it because it goes too far with simplification. (in my opinion, this is positive, because this is the purpose: to simplify the Greek language as much as possible). Another lady teacher, seeing a sample, said "it reminds of how immigrants talk when they know very little of Greek grammar". Of mocking comments, i have found only one as yet, on the internet, and even that i find positive, because it proves that it is so easy for a Greek to imitate the FreeGreek language even in mockery. Mocking comments could have been many, but i know only ONE such, obviously because Greeks understand that such a simplified language is useful because ordinary Greek language is getting lost because of adherence to a difficult grammar. I think that i have described the situation honestly and thoroughly enough; if one wants written individual data, then one may search the web with Ελεύθερο Ελληνικό Γλώσσα, or Free Greek language, or FreeGreek; in the site http://www.stixoi.info/ there is also numbering of different users' views of the texts in FreeGreek, so these are numbers of people who surely know of it. Note still, that some things found previously on web search, are hard to find now, i refer especially to the one mocking comment, which i cannot find now on web search. Also, about two years ago, i saw a poster on walls advertising a theatrical play, with a slogan "εγώ κυνηγάει, εσύ μαζεύει" which is not exactly FreeGreek, but it is almost so (accurately, it should be "εγώ κυνηγάει, εσέ μαζεύει"), and i wonder whether it was just a coincidence or they deliberately imitated FreeGreek. TO SUM UP, FreeGreek is not short in number of people who KNOW OF IT and can use it; it only lacks support from authorities, at least until now. Debate attracts attention in this nation (Greeks), and if some debate could be aroused between important people, then FreeGreek could figure in the first pages of newspapers - which has not been seen yet, to be frank. And, another thing: nobody until now cared to make FreeGreek a "notable" issue; even the texts i have uploaded on my favorite site, i did so only because i preferred FreeGreek for its conciseness, and not to make it "notable". Since the issue of "notability" is raised, it is a bell ringing for making FreeGreek more public. 888gowinda (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that, from what you say, Free Greek has simply not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means that people other than you need to have published significant things about Free Greek in a reputable place. That's just how Wikipedia works. It doesn't matter if Free Greek deserves attention. Until it actually has attention then it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but I have to vote for deletion. garik (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" contains a number of terms not really explicit to me. As also "significant things" and "reputable place". Maybe we should also say "important people have published etc.". I know it has attracted attention of a respectable number of people, but what sort of attention, what people, and in what place, these things are not clear to me. Of course, "attention" would require some proof, what could that be?. The attention should be positive, or even negative attitudes of people could also serve? Maybe if there were a forum with comments specifically on the language, would it consist enough attention? Since you are at it, can you explain to me in what ways for example Latino Sine Flexione and Toki Pona or other controlled languages (for some of them no article written yet, but it is expressly welcome) were more notable before entering Wikipedia? For example, "Common Logic Controlled English"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 13:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Wikipedia pages that explain what these terms mean. WP:Notability explains the general requirements, giving definitions of "significant coverage", "reliable", and "source". WP:Identifying reliable sources describes what is classed as a reliable source. Forums and social networking websites aren't reliable sources, and blogs are only allowed if they are by experts or part of properly-edited publications. Latino sine flexione is notable because it has been discussed in books on Peano and Leibniz and in publications on constructed languages. Negative attitudes are just as good as positive: ideally we would want a balanced view which would include explanations of both merits and flaws, as long as they came from reliable sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

these are interesting notes, but still subjectivity finds its place in the matter. As for a number of other controlled or constructed languages that have been considered notable, it is up to every person to judge. By the way, see the comments at the talk page of Lingua_sistemfrater. I wonder, is there some voting function? for people to simply cast a yes or no vote and then simply count the votes to settle the matter; that would be democratic. Perhaps more expert Wikipedia users can suggest places on the web, or "wiki"s more suitable for such an article than here. Suggestions welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 888gowinda (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that Lingua sistemfrater deserves to be there though I've not done a detailed search for references. Whether an article exists or not is decided by reference to Wikipedia policy, not by voting. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The conlang wikia might be a better place for discussing Free Greek and other constructed languages; there are also many other websites about constructed languages. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surely my knowledge (and time) seems to be insufficient to make it widespread enough and in the right places until now. So, at present, i may cite some proverbs in FreeGreek (Phonemic writing) "ÉKhI MAKhÉRI, TRÓJI PEPÓNI" (the person who has the knife, is the one who eats the melon), and also "JA QÁThE QLIDARJÁ IPÁRKhI QLIDÍ" (for every lock there is a key).

I think of coming back with a list of languages that found their way into Wikipedia and seem much less notable than FreeGreek.888gowinda (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't, see WP:WAX. -- 101.119.14.175 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. This constructed language completely fails WP:GNG, with no mentions at all in news, books, or Google Scholar. Even independent unreliable sources seem nonexistent. -- 101.119.14.175 (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

to destroy is always easy, at least much easier than creating and preserving; the same can be said of deleting. Still there are things to be explained. The term "made up" is not fitting in this place, as that controlled language has already been published on the web in the beginning of 2008, and since then a respectable number of texts were created, most of them published too; that the texts and the language attracted attention, is obvious by the number of viewers on the posts, especially on the Greek poetry and literature site, for example http://www.stixoi.info/stixoi.php?info=Poems&act=details&poem_id=176006 was read by 239 people, and received very affectionate comments too. If you think it useful, i can search on that site for a good number of texts like that, with number of viewers and comments. You must read Greek to be able to estimate those.

Now, it seems that statements from important people are wanted. But "important" people are often really unimportant and vice versa. You know that all that glitters is not gold, and all that does not glitter is not charcoal. Anyway, there have been some "important" people who have taken notice of FreeGreek, but they chose not to publicize the matter, i can cite the "society for the promotion of Greek language". That they did not put it in the news (newspapers etc.) is not because they did not take notice of it; we can think of their reasons: many people take pride exactly in the complexity of Greek grammar, and have it as a job to teach that complexity, or to organize and upkeep that whole system of complexity. "Job is good", right?

But even so, if you are patient, some notable scholarly publications will see the light. Also, many comments and views will appear on youtube, since some of you consider it an important criterion for keeping an article on Wikipedia.

If we talk books, who would print a FreeGreek book here? people hardly read any books in Greece, and especially books of academic interest. A publishing house would not make money from such a book.

As to Google Scholar, thank you for letting me know of it. I didn't know what that is until yesterday when you mentioned it. By the way, i searched for the name of the author of FreeGreek in Google Scholar, and i found, rather unexpectedly, one publication, but on a different subject.

To be sincere to each other, do not think it is hard to make a publication in a newspaper, as the one that appears in the toki pona article: a girl made a language during a melancholic afternoon, and the whole Canada is talking about it, and now the President of Canada will not use any rubber seal other than one with the toki pona symbol. To be serious, that is ARTIFICIAL notability, created to save the toki pona article from deletion.

It would be more notable to upload an article about the toy boats we made as kids from a piece of pine tree bark rubbed on a rock. Because we called the pine tree bark piece boats PITÍQA, that is a name from ancient PITUS (pine tree). The point is that a handful of people loved that toy which is called toki pona, and thought they can use it as a language, the same way as a PITÍQA can be used to cross the ocean; that is why they created a number of lessons on a website to show "links", and somehow they arranged for a newspaper article to have another link, and some other links which do not work if they ever did (now they fetch nothing), and one other link where indeed toki pona takes a part together with other languages. I do not say these just to accuse other articles; rather, i cite that to show that it was really easy to create such an artificial notability, and real publicity too, for the Free Greek Language; yet the author did not even wish his name to appear in the language infobox.

You see, in Greece olive oil is usually sold in tins of 5 kilos (of 10 kilos were popular in earlier times); if such a tin is empty, it makes very loud noise when beaten; but if it is full, it hardly sounds. Hence the metaphorical expression "ÁDJOS DDENEKÉS" (empty oil-tin).

And i will say once more, i do not wish to accuse other articles in order to save mine. My attitude is not to delete articles, just as God, or nature if you prefer, does not destroy the ants and the other small creatures, even those too small to be visible. The big animals are more impressive, but nature does not consider the small ones less important; nature does not make the unimpressive vanish.

Some times articles on unimportant things showed to be useful: if it were not for the WP article i (and MANY others) would never know of toki pona, and although i find it disgusting from all aspects, it gave me the impetus to start materializing the Systematic language (which you may see on WP if you r not against it); even the lingua Sistemfrater, although it is anything but notable, was also useful in showing that even a Vietnamese scholar in 1957 used no other source than Latin and Greek for his proposed international language. I mean that articles that many consider to delete (e.g. toki pona and Lingua Sistemfrater, indeed people proposed deletion and still some believe those should be deleted) some times are useful for the WP readers.

But i must explain some more things: it was NOT my intention to make a Wikipedia article on Free Greek Language; i simply put it in the Wikipedia list of controlled languages. Then some clever person deleted it from the list, saying that if it is not in a Wikipedia article, it cannot be in the list! That is why i upload this FreeGreek article, so that it can be in the list as is fair. But then the same kind of person wanted to delete the article too. If i add some comments to show that it is notable in some way, they will observe that the Prime Minister said nothing about it in public, therefore it is not notable enough. And if the Prime Minister referred to it, they will notice that there is no available and demonstrably genuine recording of that speech of the Prime Minister. This is in fact bias disguised as lawfulness. Every lawyer knows how to uphold both opposite cases, and still he is a lawful lawyer. I m made to appear the one who does not respect WP rules, AND EXACTLY THIS IS what makes the Free Greek Language article truly notable: that people try to give it a bad name and hang it.

While it is illegal to talk about the list of controlled languages that appear in red letters, meaning that there is no article about them in WP, but they are deserving to be on WP - there was not even one person available to write even a stub about those languages, but still they are notable.

Why are you people afraid of that FreeGreek article? Is it telling lies that can denigrate the renowned WP objectivity? If it is "meager", people will not notice it and will not add to it, as they do with other conlangs. But if it is worthy, you let your envy out by attacking a good thing.

If you still want to delete it, then go delete it, and if you want to keep that deletion template on top of it, then keep it; as for me, i have explained why deletion or keeping that template does not shame the article, it is for the article's pride.888gowinda (talk) 21:10, 28 October 2013 (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.