Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kēlen (3rd nomination)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Kēlen}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Kēlen}})

I honestly cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this conlang beyond a passing mention. All sources currently in the article are links to a fansite, which does not indicate notability. Both previous deletion nominations in 2007 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination, I can't find any reliable or independent sources either. --AlexandraAVX (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Book sources with significant coverage: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hildegard_of_Bingen_s_Unknown_Language/LZGJDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22kelen%22+sotomayor&pg=PA87&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Dictionary_of_Made_Up_Languages/GTXrDQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22kelen%22+sotomayor&pg=PT167&printsec=frontcover], [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Biting_the_Wax_Tadpole/2gGWDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22kelen%22+sotomayor&pg=PA72&printsec=frontcover]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• :The first ref looks like the coverage is only maybe a few sentences and a table, the dictionary of made up languages (which is not published by an academic publisher) maybe only devotes four pages to it, which due to the large font size is suprisingly little text. It provides no analysis, and maybe 75% is a word lists and sample text, along with a statement from the author's website why she decided to create the language. I can't access Biting the Wax Tadpole so I can't provide an analysis, but you've provided no evidence that it's significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
• ::The first ref has the bottom half of page 87 and the top half of page 88 consisting of multiple paragraphs, which is pretty obviously sigcov for me. For the second source, I'm not sure what you mean by "analysis"; but for me "Characteristics of the Language" is very much adequate. We've never had a requirement for RS to be from an academic publisher; the dictionary is from Simon & Schuster, which is certainly a reliable publisher. The third source is a bit shorter, and while it may not be enough on its own it definitely complements and adds to the other two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak delete I'm finding a few passing mentions that do not add up to much at all [https://fiatlingua.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/fl-00004B-00.pdf][https://fiatlingua.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/fl-00005B-00.pdf], and the book sources above appear to be of the same type. Importantly, none of these add any analysis - they are just brief summaries of the primary material (which makes up practically all sourcing currently in the article). If you have to scrape together dribs and drabs like this to make up a technical notability pass, then that indicates that we really should not have an article at all. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
• :I will note this badly failing proposal on a similar topic: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability. While not directly applicable here, it shows a general consensus that a source should not be discounted from being considered significant coverage just because much of it is a summary of primary material. And regardless, my Hildegard of Bingen source is very much an analysis; the author is comparing Kēlen to Irina Rempt's Ilaini. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• Keep-ish Based on sources from King of Hearts and Elmidae, I think the article is only barely just notable. I'm willing to remove citations and cited material from the fansite from the article and give it a makeover to be based on these sources if it gets through this AfD. {{bg|#e04| {{lnkc|#fff|User:Frzzl|Frzzl}} }}{{bg|#08e| {{lnkc|#fff|User:Frzzl/t|talk;}} {{lnkc|#fff|User:Frzzl/c|contribs}} }} 21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

:*I mostly edit Wiktionary now, and I admit I've started confusing the policies of the two projects where they differ. I may be mistaken here. But so far as I know, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources (terjermar.net is the author's own website), it's just that primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. So we don't need to scour the Internet looking for replacements for every link that we currently have to terjemar.net, we just need to show that the language has been treated in detail by other writers. Again my apologies if I'm misunderstanding the policy, but this is what I remember it to be. I don't have a vote of my own just yet as I would need to do more research before I can say anything confidently. —Soap— 13:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

:**I don't think you misunderstood anything, Soap. On the contrary, you pretty much hit the spot. Primary sources are fine as long as they are interpreted properly. If an author writes that his/her language is spoken by 500 people, that proves nothing but the very claim itself, but when it comes to linguistic details, the website of the author is definitely the most (if not the only) reliable source. In other words, primary sources are elementary when it comes to verifiability, but they don't help in establishing notability. Secondary and tertiary sources, on the other hand, are needed to establish notability, as well as for analysis and other meta stuff. So there's definitely no need to replace references about linguistic details. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. I have to agree with King of Hearts and Frzzl here. Sources are not abundant, but I believe they are sufficient. The Dictionary of Made Up Languages dedicates three whole pages to it (pp. 100–102) in normal lettering (I own the book). Sarah Higley discusses it in some detail, and although David Peterson in his The Art of Language Invention mentions it several times and lists it among "the best languages ever created" (p. 15). In addition, a search on Google Scholar also turns up several results, and even if Kēlen isn't discussed there in much detail, its very presence in academic literature also amounts for something. So at worst, this is a borderline case, and in borderline cases, it becomes a matter of goodwill. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 20:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
• :Addition: the article actually mentions another source as well, which unfortunately was hidden in the text, and since it is in Russian, it won't show up in Google searches. Anyway, [http://www.philol.msu.ru/~sidorova/files/conlangs.pdf this book by Shuvalova & Sidorova] dedicates no less than 12 entire pages to an indepth discussion of Kēlen. I think that pretty much demonstrates notability, at least enough to tipple the balance in favour of preserving this article. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.