- Mondlango (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was previously put op for deletion in a debate (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mondlango) at which I "voted", and was kept.
Then last month, Hermione is a Dude nominated it for deletion a second time (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mondlango_(2nd_nomination)) on account of non-notability and claimed that the only coverage in a reliable independent source was one paragraph in Edward Trimnell's book, plus a few one-word mentions in lists.
She did not mention the source I mentioned in a comment in the previous deletion debate (the one closed as keep). Mondlango is non-trivially covered in Loquentes linguis: studi linguistici e orientali in onore di Fabrizio A... by Giorgio Borbone, as you can see here. Between that source and Trimnell, there is enough material in reliable secondary sources to write an article of decent size that does not rely too much on primary sources. Giorgio Borbone is NOT the name of Mondlango's creator.
The article was closed as delete after a string of delete "votes" that was unanimous save for one comment. If I were there, I would have called attention once again to Borbone, but I was unaware of this deletion discussion until it was too late. No one brought up the source that could have proven notability per WP:GNG (which we're stuck using for conlangs until some conlang-specific notability guideline comes along), and people "voted" accordingly.
Hermione is a Dude may have not read the first deletion discussion thoroughly, or she may have duplicitously pretended not to see my mention of Borbone (although per WP:AGF, I'll assume the former). But whichever it was, it led to the deletion of this article that should have been kept. Undelete. Wiwaxia (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Wiwaxia (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus can change; endorse per the outcome of the debate. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For a clarification, it wasn't the fact that consensus had changed that bothered me. It was that a major piece of evidence that would probably have swayed the debate the other way was not brought to attention the second time. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiwaxia, I'm afraid I don't see the mentions in two successive paragraphs of Borbone as "non-trivial coverage". I'm sorry, but to me, that's a rather superficial treatment of the subject, really. So I think we have to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like significant coverage to me. Oh well, they say your mileage may vary. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite from scratch without all the spam. There were sources available, but the article as it stood was not written from the independent sources, but rather someone with a conflict of interest. It also violated WP:SPAM. There is enough information in the two independent sources you noted for an article of super-stub length to be written that strikes a balance between primary and secondary sources. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, everyone. I am kinda peeved that Wiwaxia didn't tell me about this undeletion discussion but I won't hold it against him. However, his suggestion that I acted in bad faith or nominated recklessly is not appreciated. I missed his citation on the first deletion debate but otherwise I believe that my investigation of Mondlango was fairly thorough. As for her citation: while it may be a good secondary source, it is also the most extensive discussion of it that I've seen outside of the "What is Mondlango?" spam that was posted on dozens of forums, but it links directly to what I assume was Mondlango's original homepage ( here ) (incidentally, there is only one paragraph in that book about Mondlango; the preceding one is about Romanico and the following one about a conlang called "Arlipo"). A Wikipedia article based on this and the paragraph in the Edward Trimnell book, both based solely on information from the Mondlango site, would not pass an acid test, and I don't think that people in the AfD discussion would have been swayed has this citation been presented. Endorse. Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - I read that Borbone coverage of Mondlango, and that paragraph is chunky. It wasn't what I'd call trivial. You could write a short article about Mondolango from that book alone. Of course, with the source Hermione is a dude mentioned, it's even better. Although my knowledge of Esperanto is rudimentary, the Borbone book seemed to go on for a while about Mondolango. Trivial would be a one-sentence mention that either gives the bare basics or mentions in only in passing (just the name). Subliminable (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't mistake length for substance. All of the information there comes from the old Mondlango homepage and is only a summary of that site's contents. By the way, did Wiwaxia ask you to come here and vote? Hermione is a dude (talk) 07:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As for HiaD's concerns that this and similar sources only summarize uncritically the contents of the primary source, Giorgio Borbone's book is a reliable source, published with editorial oversight, with fact-checking. By Wikipedia policy, it can be trusted to report on Mondlango accurately. A parallel is in AP articles. Many AP articles were written from press releases and make few changes, but do involve fact-checking. This includes many articles based on press releases that say a certain person is on the autistic spectrum, for example, but do not challenge their primary sources. Since AP is a reliable source, we accept these as verification that the person is autistic or has Asperger's. If such a source can be used to verify that someone has Tourette's in a BLP, such a source can be used to establish notability for a conlang. We must remember that Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not truth. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the deletion procedure has been played nicely by the rules, so from that point of view there is no reason to question its outcome. And most certainly, nothing can be held against colleague Hermione. However, colleague Wiwaxia makes a convincing point as well, namely, that the decision in question was, if not wrong, then at least based on the wrong information. IMO, the Borbone book in conjunction with a few other places does indeed make the subject notable and verifiable enough for inclusion. Mind, I am not partial to this type of languages at all, but I believe Wiwaxia should be given a fair chance to improve the old article instead of having to write it from scratch. So what I propose is the following, which seems like a decent compromise to me:
- Undelete the article and move it to Wiwaxia's user space (and remove the resulting redirect).
- Subsequently, Wiwaxia can rework it there - with the arguments used in the deletion discussion in mind.
- When he is done, he can move it back to its old location, along with the history.
- After that, it should not be deleted immediately under the banner "recreation of deleted material". Of course, it can be submitted for deletion again. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 23:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
