Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D'ni 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 no consensus. I will be bold and redirect this article to D'ni, but feel free to revert. -- RG ² 02:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D'ni language

in-universe article with no references, and no relation to the real world. Ridernyc 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep huge following, external links provide indirect references. Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 16:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to D'ni. Not separately notable enough for a standalone article. Barno 19:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what the nomination says, most of the article seems to me to be written from a proper real-world perspective, and the few bits that aren't, mostly near the end, could mostly be fixed with simple wording changes. The lack of references is a bigger problem, but, as BlindEagle points out above, it seems clear that sources for most if not all the content do exist, they merely ought to be cited properly. Ideally, most of the content should be sourced to official Cyan Worlds sources, such as the "D'ni Language Guide included in the European Collector's Edition of Myst V" mentioned in the text. In any case, this appears to be a notable conlang, and so I'm going to say keep. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into D'ni while the introductory paragraphs are not in-world, the remainder fluctuates back-and-forth between perspectives, often requiring an in-world understanding. As Eagle points out referencing is a problem - would Cyan Worlds sources be considered as 3rd party?... and a quick look through the Ghits, it don't appear that they are language-specific. SkierRMH 00:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the use of Cyan Worlds sources: For information about a constructed language, the creators of the language are a perfectly fine and authoritative source. For information about the notability of a constructed language, they may not be sufficiently neutral and unbiased, and so other sources should be used. It all depends on what is being cited in each case. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If only because there's far too much info in this article to make a successful merger possible. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 06:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / Transwiki to WikiBooks. This is one of the better articles on a conlangs. Myst is fairly significant. I don't know how significant this is, in teh context of that RPG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pseudo daoist (talk • contribs) 22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as article has no primary or secondary sources, and is written from such an in universe perspective that it seems to have been forgotten that this is a fictional, not a real language. For example, the statement the characters appear to be styled after Hebrew and Arabic provides no context, citations or analyis that could justify keeping this article. Clearly the contributors to this article did not read Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an example of a claim that should be cited, your example seems fine, but I'm not sure how you see it as being written from an in-universe perspective. In fact, it seems clearly written from an out-universe perspective, given that, within the Myst universe, the D'ni language and writing system is apparently depicted as being older than human languages such as Hebrew or Arabic. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my view, this is a classic example of in universe perspective. The Persian alphabet might be described as being styled after Arabic script; Modern Hebrew might be syled after Hebrew alphabet; but D'ni language was probably made up by the game creators, probably with the intention of giving it a mysterious or ominous look or feel. The creators probably got this idea from other games; I can't imagine that they studied classics, as this language has no real-world context - it comes from a game guide.--Gavin Collins 12:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This conlang is a well-developed and important part of a very notable computer game franchise, so it's notable. Wiwaxia 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its not a a conlang, its a fictional language; perhaps the article, which is written in an in universe perspective, mislead you? --Gavin Collins 12:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional languages are a sobset of conlangs, aren't they? Wiwaxia 05:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is a conlang. jonathon 05:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a conlang, it's not the most developed one ever; but, it can be spoken aloud, it has gramatical rules, etc. Joe 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.