English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Eurolengo

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. There is no clear consensus here - other than the fact that the article isn't the best-written, but that is something that could be dealt with by editing rather than deletion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Eurolengo

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

There are several problems with this article:

it doesn't give the slightest hint at the notability of the subject; sourcing is poor: one primary source and one secondary source (the latter apparently being a short article about a vast subject, i.e. coverage seems rather trivial here)
it is messy and contains obvious mistakes ("the English sounds ough and ph"? And why mention that an Anglo-Spanish language avoids French nasals and Dutch gutturals? Etc.) and weasel words ("Critics find...")

To turn this article into something useful, more and better sources are needed, and the whole article should be redone from start. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 15:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@IJzeren Jan: It sounds like you're criticizing the present sourcing of the article. When I removed the PROD I had found a few that weren't cited without much effort (but foolishly closed the window so will abstain from issuing a !vote for now). As nominating something for AfD requires searching for sources and basing notability on the non-existence of sources rather than the present lack of sources in the article, I just wanted to check to make sure by this nomination you mean that the other sources are insufficient in addition to those currently cited. Thanks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Sources are not only needed to prove that an article deserves a place in an encyclopedia, they should also provide enough information to serve as a base for it. That's what I am missing here. But notability isn't the only issue, the main issue is the article itself. Like I wrote, it's messy, and virtually every sentence makes me raise my eyebrows in astonishment. It starts with telling who created the language and what for, and that vocabulary is based on English and Spanish. So far so good. But then we are informed that it concentrates on the Latin component of English rather than its Anglo-Saxon aspect, i.e. essentially on vocabulary shared by Spanish and English. So what exactly is the influence of English then? No answer. Subsequently we are told that the alphabet does not contain C, but that it does contain Ch; however, what sound it represents we don't find out. And we are told that is doesn't have the English sounds (sic!) "th," "ough," "ph;" the Spanish Ll; the French nasals; and the Dutch guttural "g" and "sch." Why not mention that it lacks Gothic Ƕ, the Danish stød, the Slavic sequence šč and Vietnames tones as well? I mean, what's the point in mentioning all kinds of features that the language does NOT have and given its input languages isn't even supposed to have, while saying practically nothing about the features that it DOES have? All we learn about grammar is that adjectives precede their nouns and that adverbs are formed by means of a suffix. And for the rest, all we found out is that Eurolengo aims to eliminate certain ambiguous or difficult traits many natural languages have (which traits? how?), that it allows silent E's (how? why? what's meant by "allows"), that the numbers 11 and 12 are formed differently than 13-19 (how? why?), and that critics (which critics?) find something. I mean, it's quite possible that all these things are written somewhere, but this is obviously not the way of working with sources. Essential questions remain unanswered. Even if notability can be demonstrated, we still have to solve the problem that this article in its current state is completely useless. If you can add sources AND improve the article, I will of course happily withdraw this nomination. Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Keep The article cites two academics books that easily constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" per WP:GNG. In addition, being messy and full of mistakes is a reason to improve the article, not delete it. Piboy51 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ahem? The first source is a primary source, the second one is an article of ca. five pages containing a few sentences about the subject. That's not "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". We don't have to be overly hard on constructed languages, but this is really not enough. Besides, I very much disagree with your second sentence. It's better not to have an article about a subject at all than to have an article that gives wrong info. If the subject is really notable, then sooner or later somebody else will write a decent article about it anyway. If you can do that, then be my guest and improve it; I'll happily withdraw this nomination. But for now, all I see is that this nomination is eleven days old now, and nobody has made any improvement at all. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  - I disagree about the notability of the topic, a quick Google Scholar search shows a number of useful sources. However, on the topic of quality, we can take some steps to improve it: we can ask for help on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Constructed languages, we could reach out to the creator the page, we can add a cleanup tag, you or I could even edit it ourselves -- in my opinion, this article is calling for cleanup, not deletion. Piboy51 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
    - I have already mentioned it on the Wikiproject mentioned above, but I'm afraid that wikiproject is pretty much me. As for Google Scholar, do you really think I haven't checked that possibility as well? All it turns up is the original book, the article already mentioned, and Eurolengo as part of a much greater list of artificial languages. For the rest, one source mentions that it met with very little support, another source that nobody speaks it. Not a single book or article that discusses Eurolengo in some detail. This doesn't really point in the direction of notability, if you ask me. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Well the book written by the inventor of the language is hardly "independent". I would like to see those claiming that there are extra sources sufficient to rescue the article to either give them here, or add them to the article with suitable text and tell us here that they've done it. Without these I would go for "delete" as an interesting idea that never attracted significant attention. For interest, here's a sample: Durant le past venti fyf ans, mor persons dan semper visitan le bord de le mar in le monds de vakasion de juni, juli, august and september.[1]: Noyster (talk), 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete - Absolutely no evidence of notability, insufficient coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 14:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I did some general clean up, formatting, organization, and basically prettied up the article some. I was able to find one source that discussed how the language handles gender, but it's hardly a significant, non-trivial mention. I've found a couple other sources that mention it in terms of listing artificial languages, but mere inclusion in a list doesn't establish notability. I've also found a few sources that might have more extensive discussion, but they aren't in English (a few look like German? I'm not sure). I'll post a list of those on the article talk page. I'm not yet comfortable voting keep or delete; I think this is boarderline. However, I'd like to remind the nominator that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and problems like weasel words and false information call for cleanup, not deletion. Also, regarding the "Critics find a...." statement, it is sourced with a pinpoint cite to a page number. From WP:Weasel
Likewise, views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source.
~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, found a few more brief mentions and added them to the article. It's starting to look borderline notable; it was apparently used some during the Yugoslavia wars in the 1990s; but again, most of the mentions of it in sources are in the context of discussing constructed languages generally and why they don't catch on. Again; quite a few sources in German, French and Spanish. I don't know if anything in those is more substantial. I'm leaning towards weak keep. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, ONUnicorn, I admire the effort you've put into this, honestly. I've taken a good look at the sources you have added to the article and mentioned on the talk page:

Burckhardt mentions Eurolengo as an example of the mixture of European languages, followed by a text sample and a translation of the latter.
Cruse: merely mentions Eurolengo as an example of a constructed language with a self-explaining name.
Harris. This is a book about something completely different, but indeed, we find the following cryptic text: "Neither English nor German was understood so Eurolengo was brought into use: the odd". That's where it ends. What we don't know is on what scale it was put to use, by whom, to what effect, and for that matter, whether it's the same project at all.
Künzli: (translation) "Whereas 246 projects where published in the years 1901-1925 and 143 projects in the years 1951-1973, in the remaining period until 1983 only 10 new projects were published, and perceived as ephemeral."
Large. I don't have access to this article, but what I can see is that it is a short (8 pages) article about "artificial languages and international communication". The abstract shown on the first page doesn't even mention Eurolengo. This doesn't really point at anything non-trivial.
Laycock: "Support from organisations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations for international languages has been very cautious over the years, even more local proposals such as those for a common European language (Eurolengo, Jones 1973) meeting with very little support."
Muchnik: "Similarly, in Eurolengo, created by Jone [sic!], nouns have no gender, except for specific feminine words, such as kusin ('male cousin') versus kusina ('female cousin')."
Santaemilia. I don't know Spanish, but from what I understand he writes that "Eurolengo [is] an artificial language that was invented in Brussels for internal use by the European Union", and that it doesn't form feminine forms by diminutives like Esperanto does, but still derives them from the masculine form (example: kusin/kusina)
Scheidhauer: mentions it twice: 1. "Nobody speaks Eurolengo". 2. "Several initiatives have been proposed for adopting one unique European language. In general these are so-called artificial languages. In 1972, for example, Leslie Jones invents 'Eurolengo', 'a language for Europe'. 'Similarities with English and the Romance languages are obvious' and make it very easy to learn."
I've found a Russian source myself, in К истории развития модельной лингвистики: "евроленго (Л.Джонс, 1972), упрощенный английский с легким налетом романских языков, закончивший свое существование сразу же после первого издания книги." (translation: "Eurolengo (L. Jones, 1972), simplified English with a slight touch of the Romance languages, ceased to exist immediately after the first edition of the book.")

So what can we make of this? That Eurolengo, like many other constructed languages, has a self-explaining name. Furthermore, that it is ephemeral, that nobody speaks it, that there has been very little support, and that apparently somebody tried using it during the Yugoslav war. And that it was invented in Brussels for internal use by the European Union — which seems to be at odds with the purpose mentioned in the article, namely that it is "intended as a practical tool for business and tourism". And, at last, that it derives feminine forms by adding -a.

There are plenty of sources that mention Eurolengo as part of list of other constructed languages, which is not surprising, because every constructed language ever created before, say, 1990 is mentioned in lists like that. Most of the remaining sources dedicate only one sentence to it. What we lack, though, is a single secondary or tertiary source dealing with Eurolengo in particular, or even discussing it in some detail. Mind you, I am not against using primary sources at all; in the case of constructed languages, all you usually have is a basic framework provided by secondary sources, all the details being filled in with the help of primary sources. But in this case, secondary sources give us practically nothing we can use, and in addition, none of these secondary sources gives even the slightest hint at notability (most of them actually do quite the opposite). Which means that any decent article about this subject will have to be based for at least 90% on a single primary source. Now, I agree with you that an article being messy is in itself not an argument for deletion, but it is quite obvious that the original author of the article has been gathering his info from this primary source rather haphazardly, without really understanding much of it ("Start stub based on quick skim of conlang's foundational textbook"). [ADDITION] Providing sources is nice, but the information given should also be reliable, and that is clearly not the case here. Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah; I agree notability is weak at best. I'm tempted to order the Harris book; Amazon has used copies for a penny (plus shipping of course), and the book looks interesting for other reasons. But it wouldn't get here until after the AFD is up if I did order it. I do wish we had some context surrounding that excerpt though. Also worth noting for purposes of this AFD; the article's creator is indef blocked for sockpuppetry. Perhaps instead of deletion this warrants a redirect to Constructed languages; or a merge to List of constructed languages (except that list specifically says it's a list of notable constructed languages, and all of them are blue-linked; meaning a red-link that was deleted for being non-notable would be somewhat out of place). EDIT CONFLICT What's not reliable about the information I added?~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

When I used the word "not reliable", I was referring to the way information from the original book was used. The information you added is quite reliable, at least as far as the sources you used are reliable. :) Well, with one little exception perhaps: the sentence "Eurolengo was used during the Yugoslav Wars to aid in communication by people speaking a diverse group of languages" is kind of overstating a bit what little the Harris book gives us at the moment. I'd surely be interested to find out more about this, so if you decide to buy the book, please let me know what it writes about Eurolengo!

For the rest, I agree that a redirect to "Constructed language#19th and 20th century: auxiliary languages" would probably be the best solution for now. The additional advantage of that would be that the page history and the talk page are preserved, and, once better sources turn up, it can always be undone. Best, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

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.