RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Auxiliary language

Auxiliary language | Result: Keep

Auxiliary language (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

#What exactly has this to do with the RW mission? If there is kookery associated with that, it fails to mention it. [[User:Pizzameister|Pizzameister](talk) 19:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

1. Barely missional; fold into another article is feed be. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
2. It seems to be just barely hinted that auxilliary languages exist to serve some rational purpose - perhaps to "rationalise" communications. Is that really enough to justify this article? probably not. Flannan Isle (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
3. Doesn't seem to have anything missional. There might be kookery around constructed languages specifically, but not auxiliary languages, and there's nothing in this article to say so either. Annquin (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Does not appear to be missional. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep

1. I realize I'm probably whistling into the wind here, but this is one of the great pipe dreams of a certain segment of the human race, and one of the subjects that will keep minor cranks burning the midnight oil. It's a subject that's bound together with simplistic ideas about how to bring about world peace, and as such missional. There have been dozens of these proposed, some more interesting than others. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 23:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
2. I think it does a good job at explaining why people in academia tried popularize Esperanto and Volapük.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 04:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 04:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
3. I think it's missional, for the reasons SoT explained. It does need to be expanded, and certainly can be, but it is missional. Lord Aeonian (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
4. Keepworthy, I think. A foolish idea that cranks keep pursuing sounds right up our alley - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• Dump the salvageable bits/interesting trivia in a subsection on "other auxiliary languages" (or something like it) in Esperanto. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Goat

• I've expanded the article with more observations about Volapük and Esperanto, and will move on to some of the odder proposals when I can dig out some of those books. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• It might be saved, but I remain whether it has anything to do with the mission Pizzameister (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
• I kind of think it should be moved/reworked to focus mainly on constructed languages ("conlangs"), as that's where the real deposit of pseudolinguistics woo lies (ideas about creating some "perfect", "rational" language, etc.). --Ymir (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

• Working on just that. This is going to take some time, especially if the article is going to be actually informative. The first problem is that the audience for this sort of thing is amateur language makers themselves. This audience is exactly wrong: everybody thinks that they can make the proposal better. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 04:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• If you voted to delete this before the 14th, I'd ask that you take another look so we can move forward here. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)