Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comunleng
Appearance
I can't find any references to this on the internet that don't seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Weak delete. The French and Spanish versions of the page are much more extensive, perhaps too much so for an encyclopedia but it leads some credence to its existence. There are also a lot of web pages that link to one or more of the language versions. On the other hand, I could not find any pages unrelated to Wikipedia either. Failing independent verifiability, I agree for deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Unless verified, delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post your own research. Harro5 06:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. After a quick Google search there is nothing to suggest this isn't just another linguistics student trying to re-invent Esperanto and using Wikipedia to promote it. --Fazdeconta 12:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. This is actually a well-recognized auxlang name. 24.4.127.164 11:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Here. Check this out: http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_comunleng.htm 24.4.127.164 11:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- The site that you posted gives Wikipedia as the source of the information. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it's a useful article, even if the language is not very widely known. -- BRG 18:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Why must VfD be a popularity contest for more obscure topics? The language is only five years old. The article exists in two other languages on Wikipedia. Surely it's no more harmful to keep this than to keep Europanto (which is a little bit more popular, granted...) --cprompt 23:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Can you show me some sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors or based on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- I can't. I only translated (well, cleaned up Babelfish output of) a portion of the original Spanish article. The author there should be able to support it. Under the interpretation of Wikipedia:No original research that Wikipedia should not host "primary sources", I really can't defend this article. --cprompt 22:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Can you show me some sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors or based on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Lack of expertise on this, flag for clean-up if it survives VfD, perhaps it should have had a dispute instead of a VfD in the first place--Tznkai 01:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete - just another conlang promotion article. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - conlangs are a special case IMHO. Bacchiad 04:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. CryptoDerk 04:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The first part of the article would benefit from a more neutral POV, though. Ar 15:19, 2005 May 29 (UTC)