Disputatio:Ill Bethisad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
E Vicipaedia

To delete?[fontem recensere]

The delenda template was put on the page by one user and removed by another. We should consider whether the article stays.
[Added later:] It was removed by Usor:IJzeren Jan, who seems to be not a million miles away from the inventor of the fictional languages, e.g. Lingua Venedica, that are spoken in Ill Bethisad. We don't at present have any evidence that this particular universe has become notable. The one external link on the page no longer works. A couple of good references to independent writings about Ill Bethisad are needed. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:33, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had linked the IB wiki to begin with, but it seems an anonymous user removed it. It looks like the page still linked moved to bethisad.com after Geocities went dark. —Mucius Tever 11:47, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not less notable, and perhaps more notable, than that Italian (?) hamlet that has 56 (?) inhabitants (I wish I'd bookmarked it when I saw it!)—a population in the same order of magnitude as the population who participate in the Bethisad fantasy, and yet Vicipaedia has room for that hamlet. IacobusAmor 12:25, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, and having room or not, topics under specialized interests are going to look a lot less notable than general interests in many cases, just because the pool of people writing about them is going to be smaller. Anyway. This morning I added a reference to a library exhibit on language construction that speaks about Ill Bethisad, and a link to the ISO 639-3 table where one of its languages gets a code (admittedly, that more establishes the notability of the language, which even en: still has its article on, though the sources at en:Brithenig and en:Wenedyk might be good to mine for references to this anyway). —Mucius Tever 23:05, 19 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your view is welcome, but it is unproductive to cite irrelevant rules. I see no evidence of disruption. This is not "a thing made up one day" any more than any novel or play. And there was no obvious conflict of interest in creating the article: it is legitimate to describe one's own work on Vicipaedia so long as the work is notable and the description is neutral. (IJzeren Jan did enter the conflict-of-interest zone by removing the "delete" template from the article, but that isn't directly relevant to the outcome of this discussion.)
The question is, is Ill Bethisad notable? My impression is that Mucius Tever has demonstrated, by adding references, that it is. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:43, 21 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus is to keep. We may soon be Wikipedia's definitive source on Ill Bethisad. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:40, 26 Novembris 2009 (UTC)[reply]