Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'vi 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 speedy keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) — æk ^Talk 05:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Na'vi language[edit]

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

~~Seriously? WP:NN, fictional language only used in 1 film, and only spoken by 1 person. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am withdrawing the nom per WP:SNOW. While I still believe this article constitutes one of the biggest examples of fancruft, general consensus is overwhelmingly in favor of it, and I intent to respect the views of the community. I so, request another user closes it. Thank you. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 03:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seriously. Probably the currently most notable conlang after Esperanto and Klingon. There are discussions about it on Language Log, mention of it in Science magazine, and it has its own wiki. There are plenty of things less notable on WP, including things which get posted on the main page. kwami (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that. Esperanto has been recognized by the U.N., and it has a real purpose in the real world. Klingon, on the other hand, has been featured in almost, if not all, Star Trek series and spinoffs. This man even took Klingon very seriously. But Na'vi? If there was a WP:NOTNOW for articles, it would apply here. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said after Eo and Klingon. That means it's less notable than Eo or Klingon, but more notable than other conlangs. When's the last time you heard mention in the press about Volapuk, or Interlingua, or Ido, or Lojban? But those langs all (rightly) have articles. The purpose of WP is to provide information to people who come looking for it. Considering the number of times I'm seen this article cited online, and the scores of webpages that have lifted text from it, this is getting far more traffic than nearly any other conlang article. Perhaps interest will fade, but meanwhile it's highly topical.

BTW, as for it being spoken by one person, there are already learners sites and chat groups for people trying to learn the language. I'm not among them, but I've seen several people posting in Na'vi now. kwami (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volapuk was the first language used during an international convention.
Interlingua is actually taught at, at least, 1 university. And there is at least 1 magazine written in that language.
There have been 15 international conventions held for Ido speakers.

You could make a case for Lojban though. But the others have milestones that grant them a level of notability that Na'vi does not have. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An far as historical import goes, yes, many of them are more notable. But as far as current level of interest, readership, etc., Na'vi has nearly all of them beat. kwami (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. FYI, RUL3R, WP:NN is not a policy, and unless the subject is blatantly non-notable, notability in itself not a good reason for deletion. What really counts is whether the article is properly sourced, everything is verifiable etc., and from that point of view it passes all tests. As for notability: "only used in 1 film"... if we start deleting articles about all subjects that are only used in 1 film, enwiki will suddenly become a lot smaller; "only spoken by 1 person"... doesn't matter at all, because this is a fictional language, and unless the language explicitly has the goal of being used for communication, this is not a criterium at all (just like you can't quantify the notability of the Mona Lisa by the number of postcards sold with its image on them). Calling it "the most notable conlang after Esperanto and Klingon" is an exaggeration IMO, and it may very well be a hype, but it is a fact that Na'vi is making a tremendous carreer for a conlang, and has gained amounts of publicity that 95% of the conlangs listed here could only dream of. BTW, that Esperanto claims to be a "world language" doesn't make it any more notable than it is. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because James Cameron decided to make up a language for his first film in 12 years, said language gets its own article? I am trying to not label this as cruft, but that is what it looks like. This would fall under Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day had it not been featured in a 3-hour, 400-million-dollar, overhyped film. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, how is a language project outsourced to a linguist at USC that took 4 years to reach its current state "something that I or my friends made up one day"? kwami (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Came with the idea one day and spent another 1460 fine-tuning it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, we should delete the article on lightbulb. kwami (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Lightbulbs are used by half of the world. Na'vi is not. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that wasn't your argument. Your argument was that it should be deleted because it is "something that I or my friends made up one day". I take it that "friends" is defined to mean human beings, or perhaps fellow-contrymen, since I have no acquaintance with the inventor of Na'vi. By that logic, the lightbulb is something one of my "friends" made up one day (I am much better acquainted with Thomas Edison than with Paul Frommer), so that article should also be deleted. In fact, much of human culture consists of things that people (friends?) "made up one day", and so should be deleted as well. I think you need a different argument. kwami (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If James Cameron hasn't made a film in 12 years, that doesn't make him any less notable, does it? Furthermore, if the film is "overhyped", as you call it, that is your personal opinion, and shouldn't be playing a role in this discussion. If anything, I'd say that rather makes a point for the notability of the subject, because notability has a lot in common with hypes. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hype is not inherited from the film to the language. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 12:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Language has been covered in plenty of sources and compared to Klingon and Sindarin. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per kwami and others. Languages painstakingly constructed using the proper rules of human language are certainly notable, especially when they have they are backed by a blockbuster movie and have garnered the interest of world-famous linguists and everyday language enthusiasts. There are already people attempting to speak and write in this language. (Thus, I would also argue that there is more than just one speaker of the language. Just because only one guy happened to create it and knows all the rules doesn't mean there aren't other speakers of the language.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 15:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly obvious keep- from the references, its pretty easy to see that its got plenty enough out-of-universe notability that an article can be written. I see no reason to delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question/remark - I know this is not exactly input in the discussion, but one thing makes me very curious: I tried all the "find sources" links at the top of this page. How is it possible that a search for "Na'vi language" -wikipedia generates 393,000 results, and a search for "Na'vi language" only 73,900? Now that we're at it, I would like to mention that using "Na'vi language" is a horribly anglocentric approach. After all, the language is undoubtedly also being discussed in other languages. Besides, there may be quite a lot of texts, in which the language is discussed without ever using this particular string. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google searches can only give you an idea of what's out there. If there are more than about 800 hits, the number of hits returned is almost entirely meaningless. kwami (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A made up fictional language used in one film does not justify an encyclopedia article. it could be mentioned in the article about the film. Edison (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP No one is trying to delete Klingon language, so why should this be deleted? This is a very long (and well made) article so it would not work to merge this article into the article about the movie.

Furthermore, if consensus is reached to get rid of this article it should not be deleted, but only made into a redirect. I think it is notable now but I realize that consensus could disagree with me, so I think it should be made into a redirect (obviously I would prefer to keep it totally) so that if it becomes notable enough for consensus to change and agree it can be an article that all of this work will not be lost. --Spidey104^contribs 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For reasons already mentioned above and below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debnathsandeep (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Na'vi has had a lot of mainstream media attention even before the film was released. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] And not just in English either: [6] [7] For any other subject, this amount of media attention would be sufficient. Mithridates (talk) 04:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As one of the more recently constructed languages, Na'vi stands in a long tradition of fictional languages such as Elvish and Klingon. As it is the latest in this canon, it is of particular interest to the phenomenon of constructed languages since it is the first example whose inception is against a background of 21st century linguistics as opposed to early 20th or mid-20th century research. As such, an entry relating to its structure and study is encyclopaedic in that it reflects back onto the current state of the field as a whole. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely getting a serious amount of significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any constructed language is notable, particularly when it is comissioned by a notable movie director and constructed by a notable linquistics PhD. The article is well sourced and correctly formated. Additionally, while it's unfortunate that rul3r considers its source (Avatar) "overhyped" it's irrelevant to the discussion; meanwhile as interest in the film, the Na'vi culture and language builds it only makes the article's subject more notable. ~~K. Kimball —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.51.101 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Well I am sorry, but all that sound like inherited notability to me. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you missed my initial statement that "any constructed language is notable" the mere mention of its notable participants does not qualify it as inherited notability. Escuchame por favor. Comment added by 65.75.51.101 (talk)

I actually think I need to side w RUL3R here. I might accept any functioning conlang as notable, but there are tons of personal/undemonstrated conlang projects out there that we don't bother with, and we have deleted articles on some of these in the past. kwami (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is WP:NOTE - which is definitely amply more than satisfied. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems a functional constructed language. I'm sorry but I think the "functional" was implied in "any constructed language". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.157.27 (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant keep -- I've run across a good chunk of news coverage of this specific aspect of the film. However, this article needs to be substantially trimmed; grammatical run-down and whatnot is so specific and detailed I worry this might become a copyright problem, to say nothing of WP:WAF, WP:PLOT frustration. Article's focus should be on development and reaction, not the specific nuances of the language itself. --EEMIV (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, these are good ideas for improving the quality of the article. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe grammatical structures and vocabulary are copyrightable in of themselves. There would only be a copvio issue if someone were copying the description (for example, Frommer's Language Log posting); just givinga lot of detail about the language isn't a copyright issue. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, languages are not copyrightable (despite a few attempts). And since the article is about the language, it is appropriate to actually describe the language, just as we do with any other. kwami (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The moral theme of "Avatar", the motion picture, is generating discussion about the ethics of current and historical military campaigns and mistreatment of indigenous people. The profound and widespread public impact of the art of “Avatar”, of which the Na’vi language is a critical component, supports the Na’vi language as a notable as an encyclopedic reference based on the precedence of “Star Trek” (i.e. Klingon), “Star Wars” (i.e. Wookie, Jawaese), and “Lord of the Rings” (i.e. Elvish). Despite a lack of widespread public usage of Na’vi”, the ”art within art” of language in support of the “Avatar” motion picture has merit by it’s well-conceived development, stands alone and is not diminished as solely an artwork language, and should not be overlooked as a contributing member of languages in fiction. The creativity and beauty of linguistics creativity is better served by the full notable reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolfecat (talk • contribs) 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plain and simple: if Klingon and Sindarin can be kept here, then another language that was created by Paul Frommer who has a P.H.D. sure as hell can!! ~Nate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talik13 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP this article. Wikipedia is where we turn to find answers to questions that never manke it into "World Book" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odessa58 (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.