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

Verdurian language

The prod was removed. This is a fictional language, aka a constructed language, for which the only source is this website of the creator. I checked for sources and could find no reliable sources referring to it. Fences&Windows 00:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fictional_language#Internet-based_fictional_languages where it is mentioned; nn on its own. JJL (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, can't find any reliable sources to establish notability. It is mentioned in Fictional_language#Internet-based_fictional_languages, so it can be redirected there. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zompist.com - Michael J Swassing (talk) 02:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article contains not one but three different reliable, independent sources. Besides, everyone in the Internet conlanging community knows about the language. Subliminable (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Weak delete The only mention in reliable sources I could find is this, and I do not think it is significant. --Apoc2400 (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if only to stop somebody from dragging it out again - Pthag (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- it's clear that the people voting to delete, such as Fences and windows, haven't actually read the article. As the keeper pointed out, I have 3 independent, reliable sources, plus Rosenfelder's website, which while not independent is still reliable and authoritative. Granted, one of the sources is fiction, but even authors of fiction are expected to get their facts right. How many conlangs are notable enough to get mentioned in a novel written by someone other than the conlang's creator? As a matter of fact, a lot of conlangs for which somebody claimed there were no independent sources and put them up for AfD have since had independent sources, often from books, found -- Toki Pona, Lingua Franca Nova, Kēlen, etc. If the conlang is well-known enough, there will almost certainly be independent sources published somewhere. I've also seen Verdurian mentioned in some newspaper articles about Internet-based conlanging, much as Teonaht is often mentioned, although I can't find any in a search. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I did read it. Try to WP:AGF. I'm missing your independent, reliable sources. For the slow ones in the class, please spell out what they are and what they say about Verdurian. Oh, one of them is a minor reference in a fiction book. What are the other two? Fences&Windows 00:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two:

[Inhabitants: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases, Icon Group International, Inc., (C) 2008, p. 561.]
[Ethnoslavica: Johannes Reinhart, Tilmann Reuther, Gerhard Neweklowsky, (C) 2006, p. 213.] Wiwaxia (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. That Verdurian is one of the oldest and most significant internet-based conlangs is a fact that everybody with a remote interest in the subject knows. As for additional sources, here is a Polish article about constructed languages, in which an entire paragraph is dedicated to Verdurian. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zompist.com, with merger if necessary. Cnilep (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zompist.com. When it gets enough mention in reliable sources, it'll be put back up, if necessary. Until then a redirect is best.Drydic guy (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]