Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syldavian

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 keep for Syldavian and no consensus for Bordurian with leave to speedy renominate the latter. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syldavian

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

Non-notable fictional language. Although this is a well-developed article, I can't find any actual coverage of the subject in reliable sources. I'm listing Bordurian for the same reason. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) (A Google Books search shows that there is some mention of it in reliable sources, but no coverage that could arguably be described as significant.) Robofish (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Syldavian, Delete Bordurian. The Adventures of Tintin are about equally widespread as the Bible, so you can hardly call it unnotable. And Syldavian is one of the most famous and classical examples of a fictional language. I actually own a book about it, although it's not mentioned in the references section. I'll add it once I can find it. On the other hand, Bordurian exists only in the form of a few names and words, and that's basically all that could be said about it. The article is nice, but it's one huge pile of OR, so it shouldn't be here. A few sentences about Bordurian could be mentioned in the Syldavian article, actually. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Tintin series is extremely popular, and as a fictional language Syldavian is quite well developed and interesting as an example of a constructed language. Bubbha (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- �� Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Syldavian, merge and redirect Bordurian to Borduria#Language, per above rationales. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Syldavian, although I might be biased as an editor. Needs further elaboration on canon material, and Mark Rosenfelder's work on the language. Further comments? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. ^walk victor falk^talk 07:06, 22 February 2011 (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.