Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien language (3rd nomination)

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 keep. Again. A merge may be reasonable, but one of the talkpages is the place for it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alien language[edit]

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

Except for the single item in the Inherent difficulties section, this is redundant with the info in article Alien language in science fiction. Suggest merge. RobP (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merger is different from deletion. See WP:ATD-M. @Rp2006, would you like to withdraw this deletion discussion and suggest the merge on the article's talk page? Cnilep (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhile no "alien languages" exist that we know of, it is apperently a theoretical topic which has gotten enough academic attention... there are sufficient sources to warrant this as it's own article and a merger with alien languages in sci-fi wouldn't work, this has nothing to do with that topic. Ps there was a strong concensus to keep the last two AFD's what has changed about the article or wiki policies to look at this again?Sethie (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So it is acceptable to just keep an article that is nearly as old as Wikipedia itself and still has not been updated to include any of the supposedly notable sources available? Indefinitely? Again, this article mostly concerns just the sci-fi aspect of the topic - which already has its own article. Why is that acceptable? I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. RobP (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sethie. 92.2.70.144 (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Sethie. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The editor who nominated this article for deletion has removed some of the strongest sourced material, which emphasize the academic and scholarly angle of this topc, with what seems to me inaccurate and misleading edit summary.... strongly request the admin who closes the AFD, to look at it's state before these edits. Sethie (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC) went ahead and fixed this issue.Sethie (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated directly above, "I have deleted anything not applicable to the stated subject of this article now. I think this highlights how thin it actually is. "What I deleted was all the SciFi material which belongs in the other article, Alien language in science fiction. So, Sethie, you may have just made my point. Indead - that was "some of the strongest sourced material" here. Not much left other than the SciFi angle. RobP (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, valid subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2018 (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.