Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Progressiva

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 of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 17:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressiva

Delete. Non-notable conlang. Self-referencing on a few other internet sites. No truly independent references. -Gavin 05:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Abstain~~. Language seems to be somehow related to Anglo-Romance. Frankly, I don't know enough about this to give a well-motivated opinion. I'd like to hear more arguments pro and contra before I finally decide to vote. Perhaps it would be an idea to merge this into an article about Esperantids? —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references I could find (in English or Italian) describe it as an attempt or incomplete. I don't think it's a fully developed conlang, which makes it rather unverifiable at the very least. Chick Bowen 02:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provisionally. Nothing on the page makes it seem notable, and the only relevant ghits for "progressiva language" are this page and the langmaker page, both created by the language creator. If I saw good arguments for its notability, I could change my vote. DenisMoskowitz 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DenisMoskowitz. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 09:12, 25 January 2006 (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.