Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mondlango (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 July 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mondlango

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mondlango is an IAL which has little presence on or off the internet. Its biggest appearance offline is a paragraph in this book Its name appears in a few lists of Esperantidos (although there's no telling whether or not the entry in the list refers to this Mondlango, since it is a pretty obvious name for an IAL). As for the internet, while "Mondlango" nets an impressive 97,000 ghits, a look at them reveals that it's all spam and Wikipedia mirrors. It seems that the creator of Mondlango has spammed an essay called "Why Mondlango?" on numerous forums (this essay is cited here on Wikipedia as "an opinion on Mondlango"). The other citations are: mondlango.com, fan sites (1, 2), a mailing list, and wenxue.com, which has a dictionary and a forum with thousands of posts from the same person. In fact, almost everything about it on the internet seems to come from the same small group of people. One paragraph, an entry on some lists, and spam does not add up to notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Hermione is a dude (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the rules I believe this violates are WP:NOTE as I discussed above and WP:SPAM, as it is essentially the same article that original writer, apparently a friend of the creator on Mondlango, made in 2009. Indeed, it actually includes real spam in its citations. Hermione is a dude (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding the "impressive 97,000 ghits", in my experience the number of hits reported by Google is usually a meaningless random number. When I page through the Google hits for "Mondlango" they actually stop at 478, rather than the 214,000 that Google initially reported. This is typical behaviour. While I'm here, I may as well also mention that I don't see any evidence in the Google hits of any real-world awareness of, interest in or take-up of this language. 81.159.111.181 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RSes. Search shows this thing being mentioned only by the people/person inventing the idea. Also, this article is pretty clearly promotional (as instead of discussing Monglango "from afar", it lays out a page giving an overview of the language itself (like almost teaching to speak it). This is just someone who wants to use Wiki as a place to host a page. We have way too much of that going on...TCO (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be notable. Captain panda 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google books search does through up some mentions, but no specific discussion as would assist the article passing the WP:GNG. It could yet take off to some meaningful extent, but the article is premature. If this were a film or book, it would be in the "rumour" stage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. From article itself and the Google searches mentioned above the notability of the subject seems highly questionable. The article might be kept, if it's sourcing were improved and the sources clearly indicated the notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.