Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almea
This conworld gets few google hits--432 for the search Almea world, 133 for Almea "Mark Rosenfelder". [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:12, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- And searching just for Almea returns 2900. Keep. DarkFantasy (talk) 12:53, 13 Jul 2004 (CDT)
- Of those, 4 of the top 10 are about a yacht named Almea, one is about a manga character, and one is in some sort of Eastern European language, while the world was created in English. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Even if all of those hits were for this Almea, which Meelar has shown they are not, this article should be deleted. This is even worse than a micronation, and we delete those. Oh, delete. RickK 18:26, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)
- There seems to be no significance to this, or to Mark Rosenfelder, or to further links in this vein, so I'd vote to Delete the lot. Average Earthman 20:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: Unsure. The only fault I can find with this article is that it doesn't give any evidence that this conworld has been used or explored by significant numbers of other people. We don't delete all micronations, conlangs and conworlds, we keep conlangs that are major plot elements in popular movies and novels for example. We do delete vanity articles of all sorts, and many (perhaps most) micronation, conlang and conworld articles are just that. But this isn't a vanity article, it's by a good contributor with an interest in the general area. The Google statistics are inconclusive IMO. Has cleanup been tried? Andrewa 20:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: not notable or in widespread use. -Sean Curtin 21:25, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Though an admirer myself of Mark Rosenfelder's creations, and an obsessed reader of his board, I agree that we do not need articles on them here on Wikipedia. And to all who keep writing them: please stop doing it. Once Mark gets something published on good old dead trees, we can reconsider writing them, if his dead trees sell, which I hope they'll do, but that's another thing. - Cymydog Naakka 21:42, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) ("Jar Jar Binks" on the ZBB, in case you were wondering)
- Delete but. Rosenfelter's imagined worlds are fascinatingly full of detail, and more importantly, are or at least seem internally consistent -- especially noteworthy is his rigorous approach to creating fictional languages with fictional developmental histories. But an article on a single fictional world not traditionally published is problematic. May I suggest that Rosenfelter's creations as a whole are, despite lack of traditional publicity (books, newspaper articles), worthy of inclusion as an article? -- orthogonal 00:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 00:04, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable. —Stormie 00:27, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not happily, since I'm also a fan of Mark Rosenfelder and his works. The article also contains much recent material that's barely short of copyvio (see the talk page).
I would disagree, however, with deleting Mark Rosenfelder; I believe we had this discussion already (or maybe it was about Zompist.com), and it was voted that his Language Construction Kit was well-respected in conlanging circles, which may be Mark's chief claim to encyclopædic fame. And I'm unsure about Verdurian language — I believe it's moderately notable in the same circles. However, Almea the conworld is probably not notable enough, nor in widespread use (I can't recall having heard of other people using it, as I have e.g. for Ill Bethisad, which might deserve an article).
It would be nice if some mention of his works could be made in a collective article (perhaps Mark Rosenfelder itself?), as orthogonal suggested; it is fairly extensive and detailed. And as Andrewa said, "conlang|micronation|conworld" does not equal "automatic deletion", though it can be a factor. -- pne 16:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Agreed; however, his conlang (started with a "V"), Almea, and his software package on his website (Zompist.com) should all go. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)