Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellish

:{{la|Nellish}} ([{{fullurl:Nellish|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellish}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article is essentially someone's essay about the fictional language used in a film. It has no valid citations (only a link to the IMDb quotes section) and basically consists of original research. Because it is original research, it isn't suitable for merging in the film article and that has been under consideration since 10/08, although no one has commented on it. I see no valid reason to keep this page, it isn't notable on its own. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

*Redirect and merge all content to Nell (film). This is a case in which I'm not worried about the O.R. issue, because an it's explanation of an important feature of the film.  J L G 4 1 0 4  11:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

:Response to question you didn't leave in your response. The word Nellish is used once in passing in the film. When the two doctors are discussing that Nell actually speaks English, she says "There's only one word of pure Nellish in there", in reference to a word they don't think is English. The article is incorrect to even describe Nell's speech pattern as Nellish. It's The once used word Nellish refers to what they think is a made up language, which is later corrected when they realize it is mostly largely misprounced English (due to her learning from a mother with aphasia) and some twin speak combined. What she speaks isn't a fictional idiosyncratic language that requires a new name. Twin speak is what it is. It is also called idioglossia. It may be a subtle distinction, but it is a significant point. It basically means the article is incorrect in most of its assumptions. It treats the speech as a third speech entity, instead of the two that already exist in the film speech, which is original reseach that has totally wrong assumptions of the origination of the speech used and doesn't at all make clear it is idioglossia. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

::Fair enough. I attributed more significance to the term than it has. I was hoodwinked into believing that this was an example of idioglossia or at least some sort of interesting linguistic phenomenon. J L G 4 1 0 4  00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete a merge only makes sense if this has received significant coverage in reliable sources, and as far as I can tell, it hasn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Nell (film) The use of idioglossia is a specific plot point in this film, and the information as presented in this article is too good to delete. However, it is not at all notable outside of the film. Eauhomme (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

:Comment: I don't think you see the distinction between what this article is saying and the fact that idioglossia is actually what is portrayed in the film. This article treats her speech as if it were some newly discovered language, called "Nellish", which is factually not true. It is garbled English coupled with idioglossia. The film article already covers that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

::Response Agreed, and separate from my point. Regardless of whether it is a true language or an aphasia, it is not notable outside of the film. However, it should not be deleted, because within the confines of the film, it is very good information--hence my call to merge, as opposed to delete. Eauhomme (talk) 06:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and oppose merge. The material in this article is original research. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. LK (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2009 (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.