Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uniala (constructed 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The result was Speedy keep, as the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination and no one is advocating to delete the current redirect page (non-admin closure). --Lambiam 21:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uniala (constructed language)

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

I'll start off with what I wrote before: "Completely non-notable Esperantido which, if Google is any judge, doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia, its mirrors, and wherever Petro Stojan published the grammar." I thought it was an open-and-shut case, which is why I didn't bother using the AfD tag that required that I open a debate. However, User:Wiwaxia removed the tag, arguing that the article was notable because the "[l]anguage was invented in 1923 and is still known today! Also, its history was described in the 1976 ediiton of Eco-logos." This seems dubious to me for two reasons. First, there is probably a policy on Wikipedia stating that age doesn't make a subject inherently notable. Sure it's old, but so what? Second, after a fairly thorough search of the internet (including JSTOR), I had a tough time proving that Uniala exists, which makes me wonder in what circles it is known. None that use the internet, apparently. Eco-logos was apparently an Esperantist journal from the 70s whose purpose was to discuss Esperantidos, and it took a while just to figure out that much about it, since it too is rarely mentioned on the internet and does not appear in JSTOR. WP:NOTE, plain and simple. *bows* Hermione is a dude (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An update: User:AllyD has added a citation to the page, but it is only to a list of Pater Nosters which the author says was taken from a list compiled by Petro Stojan, who is the creator of Uniala. This is still insufficient to establish notability.Hermione is a dude (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was curious about this one and did turn up a couple of 3rd party mentions: the 1958 Mario Pei book and it is listed in the Appendix to Arika Okrent's "In the land of invented languages" (ISBN 0812980891). But these do fall well short of deep discussion. AllyD (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble with both books is that they contain hundreds of languages. Both are excellent resources, but it would go too far to treat a bare mentioning in them as a proof of notability alone. It does of course add up to it, but for a language to have an article on its own, more sources are needed. My feeling is that Uniala should be listed in a list of esperantids, not in a separate article. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So is a Merge into Esperantido the optimal solution to this and possibly other articles on such languages, whose substance hardly rises above a basic stub? AllyD (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Uniala should be included on Wikipedia just because it exists. While Esperantidos in general as well as specific examples are notable we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that they all are. Hermione is a dude (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, a thing doesn't have to be particularly notable to be mentioned IN an article. I really can't see any harm in including it in a list, like the old List of Esperantidos used to be before it became a redirect. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Esperantido. Angr (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: The only information contained in the article is in fact this: "Uniala is an international auxiliary language created in 1923 by P. J. Troost and Petro Stojan. That's bit of info is worth preserving. Esperantido would be one possibility, but there is also an the article about Petro Stojan that might even be a better place. In that article, you'll find that there are no less than another four of these babies:

Ariana or Aryana was one of the international auxiliary language projects by Petro Stojan from 1912 and was an esperantido whose word stock was based on Pre-Indo-European (Aryan) radicals. It was a pre-form of Amiana. The project received Montagu C. Butler Library classification 419.31 “1912”.
Amiana is one of the constructed language projects by Petro Stojan. It is an evolved form of Ariana and is an Esperantido. The project was first presented in 1919 and its final version appeared in 1922 but was never published. It received Montagu C. Butler Library classification 419.31 “1919” with a comment: ˝An incomplete, unfinished and fuzzy sketch˝ (˝skizo nekompleta, nefinita, nebula˝).
Espo is a constructed language, a pra-form of Eo created by Petro Stojan under the pseudonym (Ribaulb) in 1926 but never published. It does not use the Esperanto correlatives but a naturalistic system of Ido. The word "Espo" is also used among Idists as an offensive word for Esperanto.
Eo is an esperantido proposed by Petro Stojan in 1926 under the pseudonym Ribauld. Its main characteristic is very short radicals.

And that's it, this is their entire content. It is highly unlikely that any of them will ever grow into anything more than what they already are. It's quite obvious that none of these projects are even remotely close to being notable. Of course, they deserve being mentioned in the article about Stojan, so we might as well move the information there and delete the whole bunch. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC) For the record, Uniala was turned into a redirect even at the Esperanto edition, where apparently the only criterion for including a constructed language is being one.[reply]

Redirecting these conlang articles to Petro Stojan wouldn't be a bad idea. Hermione is a dude (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done for all five of them. I realise this is me being perhaps a bit too bold while the AFD is not concluded yet, but it's also obvious that this is the best anyone could make of it. The redirects can stay or be removed, it doesn't really matter. These five articles were among the worst-visited of the entire WP:CL anyway (1-5 visitors a month). —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 02:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:54, 11 July 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.