Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Neo

Neo

 * Keep : Lincher 23:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC). It is a great idea as wikipedia brings people together, it can also be used to create a language to make people speak together, in a way it should be pushed because it help creating communities.


 *  Keep  Delete : Jun-Dai 19:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC) I don't know that it is a "great" idea, or that it is really appropriate for wikibooks, but I'm in favor of keeping it as I'm curious to see where it goes, and there's no place in the Wikispace that is currently more appropriate for it than here. I no longer think that this is appropriate in Wikibooks.  Even if we bent the rules about primary research, etc., we'd still have to overcome the fact that we are attempting to create a new, international language on an English wiki-project.  This wikibook is essentially doomed, but the core idea behind it has, I think, merit.  It should really be a project of its own--one that somehow coordinates efforts from any language.  The fact that the name already exists as an artificial language is not, by the way, a good arguement for deleting the project.  If that were the only problem, then a simple renaming would be in order.  Jun-Dai 10:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete:PurplePieman 08:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Well, here's the thing. According to this page Neo is a "real" language, that was invented by an Arturo Alfandani from Belgium back in the 60's when international languages were all the rage. Apparently, it had quite a bit of a following for a little while. However, is this the same Neo as the one in this wikibook? It doesn't sound like it is. So, I would like the book to discuss the original Neo. I, too, think that it is an inappropriate usage of Wikibooks to try to create a new language, especially when one already exists with the same name. Hopefully, someone can step forward with more information on this obscurity.


 * Keep: 68.226.5.146 20:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC) The Neo created by Arturo Alfandani may have been a language in the 60s, but it isn't anymore. Even the link you gave says that old Neo is "dead".  Also, if Wikibooks can write about Esperanto and other articifical languages, why not a new artificial language? Wikibooks is ideally set up for that sort of collaboration.  Sure, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but why not Wikibooks?
 * Non-registered users at Wikibooks are not allowed to vote. KelvSYC 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's still a language whether anyone speaks it anymore, or not. Haven't you ever heard of a "dead" language (like Sanskrit, or Latin)? Besides, why insist on using a name that's already taken? Because Neo sounds cool?
 * As for why a new language project shouldn't be on Wikibooks, see Wikibooks is not (item #9) "A place for primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web."
 * I do think it's kind of a cool idea, but this is not the place for it, and it should get a new name to avoid confusion with the existing Neo language. PurplePieman 01:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Archive it somewhere so the information can be used in a new project. It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't belong on English Wikibooks. Also, I agree that the project should use a different name. Jobarts-Talk 05:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: While I think that it's a really cool idea, if I stick to the spirit (if not the word) of what Wikibooks is not, then it really doesn't belong on Wikibooks. Possible new homes for this project have been suggested on it's talk page. I hope it flourishes there. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:17, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: violates What Wikibooks is not. Gentgeen 7 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)


 * Delete - Aya 8 July 2005 15:27 (UTC). Justifications follow:
 * There are already too many little-used constructed languages (e.g. Klingon, Loglan, Lojban, see also: conlanger), and although I find the idea fascinating, I don't believe they will ever amount to anything. None of these will ever become as popular as Esperanto. Do we really want to advocate another new language to die off into obscurity?
 * I very much doubt it will ever evolve into anything beyond a list of english words and translations into some psuedo-Western-European language. There is no defined grammar or usage. And if no-one speaks it, what use is it?
 * The page clearly states "Q: Who is the author of Neo?" then "A: You are!". So it is clearly original research.
 * The page name might serve to confuse it with the existing language of the same name as stated by others.


 * Keep If people are worried that the language will die off into obsurity, then why are you saying it should be deleted straight away? If the argument is, "Do we really want to advocate another new language to die off into obscurity?" then we should let it be under its own devices. And yes, Neo should be in the English Wikibooks section. It's written in English. Abc123.


 * Delete In opposition to the above, I enter the following: Wikibooks should not be a place for original work, in any field. It seems that Neo is purporting to construct itself in Wikibooks, which is contrary to the mission of Wikibooks. The page should therefore be deleted. Abc123.


 * Delete I have been relutant to oppose this Wikibook, as it is something I rather enjoy (linguistics) and is rather interesting. It would be nice to try and trans-wiki this to another place (perhaps someplace in Wikicities?), but it really doesn't belong here on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 03:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Just as the 21st Century Math book went, so should this. The reason we don't allow original research is because of the importance of maintaining credibility. Ideally, our books should be well referenced and contain abundant primary or secondary source citations. Doing so means that our readers can give us a certain level of trust right off the bat. The way we present information can be original or innovative, but what we present should already be heavily vetted by the relevant experts/scholars/et cetera. MShonle 03:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel the consensus here is delete. If anyone wishes to transwiki this, let me know ASAP. - Aya T C 00:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than straight kill it off, I've transwikied it in its entirety to The Conlang Wikicity. I've re-christened it "Wiki Neo" so as not to clash with the Neo they already have there. So if you want to contribute to this language, by all means do so, but take it there instead. Neo here has been recreated as an explanation of this move, and should not contain content of its own. GarrettTalk 13:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)