Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaytrin

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. Shanel 04:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaytrin[edit]

Unverifiable, non-notable vanity article Chris 05:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - note that the first paragraph asserts to be unverified.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I put that "unverified" comment in some time ago.--Chris 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add {{Unreferenced}} - I think that if true this is significant enough to have its own article - so not a vanity article. --David.Mestel 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hits in Google (though a couple for the project's author), and some of the content seems pretty fanciful (a Linguistics Board, a Chancellor, a "Praechancellor" for a project involving at best a handful of people), so I'd say it's profoundly unverifiable, as well as an instance of using WP as the first place of publication.--Chris 15:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. My vote is now Delete --David.Mestel 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article tells you that the language is unverified --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've asked several times on the talk page why the language would be notable. No response. Unless someone comes up with some convincing arguments, I think we can safely state that this languages does not meet any standard of notability. BTW, I've moved its content to the Conlang Wiki, just in case: http://conlang.wikicities.com/wiki/Kaytrin. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if verifiable, would not be notable. Sounds perilously close to something made up in school one day Fan1967 14:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete:This is true, do your research. --Hawkeye216 19:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any URLs that would help us out?--Chris 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per article: unverified, undocumented and allegedly spoken by several individuals. --TM 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kaytrin has no significant use, and the several individuals consists of about 4 highschool students who usually speak in plain English, and its creator who apparently keeps a journal in "Kaytrin". A page devoted to "Kaytrin" is like a page devoted to a code that someone invented in school one day. - an informed student on the uselessness of Kaytrin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.106.158 (talk • contribs)

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.