Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (4th nomination)

Toki Pona

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Toki Pona
• Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (5th nomination)

Toki Pona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I went over the previous deletion discussion from 2005 and didn't find strong reasons for keeping except that a lot of people supported the keeping. The article is struggling to establish notability and cites a lot of sources, but most of the sources fall into two categories: primary sources or trivial news coverage. Neither of them is good for establishing notability. Especially telling is the response from the ISO 639-3 Registration Authority (pdf): it rejected the proposed three-letter language code, explaining that it's a novelty language that produced some media interest, but expressing doubts about its continuing importance. Did anything change since then? I doubt it, but it's open for discussion.

To alleviate any doubt, I am not proposing deletion because the language has few speakers. A language may have few speakers, but be notable for other reasons. I just don't see those reasons for this language.

I am listing this under "Fiction and the arts" not to poke fun at this language as "fiction", but because I accept the idea that language construction is an art form. If anybody feels that this is not appropriate, feel free to put it in a different deletion category. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: I now noticed the other two deletion discussions. The second's deletion rationale is similar to what I wrote above, and the result was delete. The result of the third was "keep" because "as a rule of thumb, entries with circa 40 interwiki links are seldom non-notable". Well, I went over several other languages that I can read and couldn't find any sources that would establish notability. For what it's worth, it happens to be nominated for deletion in the Russian Wikipedia, too, for similar reasons: no sources to establish notability. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• Keep, as discussed in the 3rd nomination. Greenman (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep, this is a very important language to reference within the worldwide Esperanto community. Chuck SMITH 18:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)