Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alien language (2nd nomination)

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 keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alien language

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

Ill-referenced and speculative essay-style article roughly about a fictional concept. Looking through the history, it's been like this since 2005; has in the past been a magnet for long slabs of WP:SYNTH, which then had to be removed. Not clear there could be a clearly-referenceable topic for this to be about any time in the foreseeable future. The previous AFD, soon after it was created in 2005, suggested potential for a good article here, and that we should wait and see; this has not happened in the 12 years since. David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. There's enough discussion out there, e.g. "Alien Interpreters: How Linguists Would Talk to Extraterrestrials" in Scientific American, "If we found aliens, could we speak to them? Scientist explores how humans might translate an extraterrestrial language" in the Daily Mail, "Scientist develops programme to understand alien languages" in The Daily Telegraph, etc. Then there's all that first contact fiction, such as Arrival, and let us not forget the Klingon language. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep room for improvement is not grounds for deletion. Artw (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deleting the article is unlikely to result in a better one. Seems a notable topic based on cited references, and things like Arrival (film) last year have increased interest in the topic. I wouldn't describe it as an "Ill-referenced and speculative essay-style article"; it's a reasonably functional stub with links to other relevant articles and off-wikipedia sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slight tendency towards ""keep"" - this article, admittedly, needs more information, but it would form an important topic of discussion for those interested in exobiology and also among science fiction fans. I think that what I am probably saying is repeating what a person has said above - namely, that room for improvement is not a ground for deletion. Vorbee (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Quite expandable. It's just wikipedians don't give a feck on the subject beyond popculture trivia. I've added a little bit, to show that not only scifi geeks and kranks are interested in the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:NOEFFORT. The topic is clearly notable but, as it is inherently speculative, we should expect it to be difficult to do well. Deletion would be contrary to our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable and verifiable. /Julle (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the subject was notable in 2005, then it is notable in 2017. WP:N#TEMP Notability is not temporary.--Truthtests (talk) 23:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs work not deletion. Antonioatrylia (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2017 (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.