Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babm

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. John254 15:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babm[edit]

The page has one significant source - a book that was published by the creator of this artificial language (Amazon.com and library search engines are aware of its existence). However it is not so good with presenting external sources. Furthermore, the article admits that "the language has not caught on even within the constructed language community, and does not have any known current speakers". Therefore the notability of this subject is rather shaky. Amir E. Aharoni 14:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete as admitted by the article. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Babm has never gained any momentum, but was widely discussed by linguists in the 60s and 70s. It's a linguistic curiosity and is well known among specialists. Also, please note that several other Wikipedias have articles on it, none of which have ever been AfDd for what it's worth. Babm is and will forever remain esoteric to the general public, but is a significant landmark in the research of constructed languages. --Targeman 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors in other Wikipedias may have thought that it is notable because it is included in the English one.

If you can provide verifiable sources for the fact that it was, as you say widely discussed by linguists in the 60s and 70s, i will withdraw this AfD immediately. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the other Wikipedias, the Esperanto and German articles both pre-date the English one. As for sources, they can be found almost exclusively in specialized books, but I have no access to a university library right now. Google hits such as this audio presentation by the College of Charleston only give a passing mention to Babm, as the language was declared a blind alley in research many years before the internet and is now only a curiosity relegated to blogs. So I suggest not to delete now just because finding sources requires several hours spent at the library. --Targeman 13:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Can you recall any authors or titles that treated this subject? I am going to a library on Sunday and you can help me save some time. I'd happily withdraw this AfD, if more and better sources could be added. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't. I honestly have no clue about authors and books that discuss Babm - constructed languages, except Esperanto, are not my cup of tea. I doubt however that you can find sources in a general library. If any generally available books mention Babm, I would bet on the Penguin series on linguistics. Most books on artificial languages should also mention Babm. However, if you find nothing, I'll have to accept that Babm is just not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Targeman 14:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't went to the library yet, but i plan to visit it in the next few days. If the administrators don't want to keep this discussion open, i don't mind if you close it as Keep. If it is possible, you can put it on hold somehow. Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 13:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat^♫ 22:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not convinced that "All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed" (WP:DP). Languages are generally notable, unless there's very good reason to believe otherwise. It's a very decent stub, work has been put into it, and it's certainly more helpful to readers than a "this article has been deleted" message. When it doubt, keep. — xDanielx^Talk 23:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep apparently has non-trivial, independent coverage in Libert, Alan (2000). A Priori Artificial Languages. Munich: Lincom Europa. ISBN 3895866679. cab 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A topic can be important, even if it isn't in practical use. Many physical and neural net models are of considerable interest despite a lack of practical applications. Babm also falls into this category, as it has elicited interest and respect within the auxiliary language field. Valerius 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per xDanielx. Mathmo ^Talk 03:39, 9 August 2007 (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.