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

:{{la|Kotava}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kotava_(3rd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Kotava}})

Following the recent deletion discussion about another artificial language, I would like to ask the community for its opinion on this one as well. In short, much of the article is original research and practically all that remains is based on primary sources only. Besides, the article fails to give any conclusive evidence regarding the notability of its subject. One reliable third-party source is mentioned, but neither does the article quote it, nor is it made clear to what extent Kotava is discussed in it. Other sources appear to be non-existent. These and other issues have been brought up on the talk page a while ago, but haven't been addressed. The article has been deleted twice now, in 2005 and 2008, and it just seems to be too early for recreation. Four things hint at notability: an ISO 639-3 code; a book in which Kotava is used as a fictional language; the Moskovsky/Libert publication; and a relatively large corpus of translated literature – perhaps just enough to tipple the balance, perhaps not. But in its current state there are too many issues with this article (WP:N, WP:VER, WP:OR, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ONEDAY, WP:TOOSOON). Unless these issues can be solved, deletion seems the only way out. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The article was undeleted after some discussion despite these same arguments. Nothing has changed. — kwami (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
• You mean this discussion, right? It was my impression that this undeletion was done only because Kotava has an ISO code, and only with the purpose of making the page history visible (initially via a redirect, like Romanova language). The question, however, is whether an ISO code alone is enough to warrant an article, especially given a notorious lack of non-primary sources. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

:::Yes, you're right. I forgot about that. The answer then, I think, would be to revert it to a redirect, not delete it. If restoring it becomes a problem, we can always protect it as a rd. — kwami (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

::::That would, of course, be a perfectly acceptable solution. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::Shall we just do that, then? I doubt we're going to get much interest in this AfD, if past discussions are any guide. — kwami (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::Why not? It would surely be the quietest and cleanest solution. In that case I will of course withdraw this nomination. If the article gets recreated in the future, I'll simply relist this AfD, but let's hope that won't be necessary. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the page has been reverted to a redirect, I hereby withdraw the nomination. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

{{AIV|n}} The nomination has been withdrawn and the AfD was incorrectly closed. I have reverted those edits and am closing the AfD now. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:08, 17 August 2013 (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.