Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Neo-Quenya

Quenya
The content doesn't belong on Wikibooks. It should go to Wikia or Wikiversity because, even though lots of Lord of the Rings fans want it, it is a fictional language that has no practical uses. Maybe I'd change to pro-quenya if you proved it had uses, but not now. Thanks, Laleena (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a featured book. Furthermore, its creator was a professor of linguistics, so the language serves as a good springboard for studying and exploring language in general, just as Linux serves as a good springboard for studying and exploring operating systems.  --Jomegat (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jomegat. Just because it doesn't have an obvious pratical use, doesn't mean it should be deleted.  For example a lot of the more advanced mathematics books could look to have no practical use to non-mathematicians.  --AdRiley (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The rationale that has typically been used for this and other conlang books is that this is not original research. There are other resources, books, and websites that cover the topic of quenya. Compare this to the Pilingual Primer, which is completely original research, and for which there were no available resources outside of wikibooks at the time it was nominated for deletion. I will, however, note that a google search for quenya does return both the wikipedia and wikibooks entries on the first page, although there are also many other pages of unknown authority listed as well. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Strong keep - no valid reason to delete was given, and I can find none. Obviously the deletion of Pilingual Primer is the impetus for this nomination. Laleena would do well to read the reasons for deletion, namely that it is original research, and is therefore outside project scope; note that usefulness is not mentioned in WB:WIW, nor in WB:DP. This language, while obviously constructed and arguably useless, is not original research - there is a surprising amount of scholarship (ie found via database search) and writing on the subject. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep - This is a constructed language, and is used by linguists who study the works of Tolkien from a linguistic viewpoint. For crying out loud, Tolkien himself was a linguist professionally, and only wrote fiction as a diversion.  Not only can you use the works of Tolkien as legitimate research sources for the study of this language, you can even go back to the sources that he used to create the language in the first place, especially considering that Tolkien was a scholar of nordic languages in general.  If this were the only language textbook on Wikibooks, I might be a little more concerned, but I hardly find a discussion of a constructed language to be out of place when other more common cultural languages like French and German also also readily available.  --Rob Horning (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep For the reasons above. It's referenced and most certainly suitable for Wikibooks and the Wikibooks Language department. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Panic (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)