Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibere

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 Delete. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ibere

Ibere (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article feels real hoaxy. This claims to be about a constructed language, but the language it describes feels like a dialect of French. I have searched through the articles at Wikipedia on French varients (such as the Oil family and Occitan and the like) and can't find anything specific, however, a google search turns up NOTHING at all... Any ideas on this one? Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not getting what you're saying or how this article is somehow unworthy to be posted. And seeing as constructed languages are just that, it's kind of a given that it will sound "hoaxy". If you've checked and found that it's not a dialect of French, nor any other language, only one option remains. Just some thoughts. --Illa Sanguis (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• You might want to read the policy on Wikipedia that says No Original Research. Wikipedia does not allow people to publish works of their own creation. There are many constructed languages that are VERY well documented (like Esperanto). What makes articles like that notable enough for an article, and THIS one clearly not, is that the information they contain is verifiable, in that it has been extensively covered by independent sources. This article shows no evidence that this is anything but a made-up language that no one else has ever written about, apparently except you. Due dilligence wad done on this subject (see Google Search above) and no evidence of the existance of this language has yet shown up. If you have access to sources we do not, please provide them so that others may make an educated decision. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 13:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, promotional article for a constructed language of no apparent notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. --escondites 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, apparently original research, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2008 (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.