If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Page does not meet the criteria for a notable article (ie verifiable secondary sources) and reads like an advertisement written by the language's author. Finlay (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: There's already been some page vandalism from what I can only assume are fans of the language, since they're saying things like "it's no use deleting it, cos our master isn't interested in wikipedia thing and we will rewrite the article in the future. you're useless". I would recommend that if this gets deleted, that it get salted just for the threats of re-adding it again and again. Might be worth looking into getting the page protected just to keep the vandalism from continuing.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete and salt. I searched for sources and unless there's any in Japanese (since there's a book published in Japanese), then I'm going to say that there's just no reliable sources out there about this language. There's a ton of non-reliable sources that were added by people who are a fan of the language, but popularity does not equal notability. Ultimately this is just something someone made up one day (even though it was back in the 90s) and it has yet to achieve notability per Wikipedia's standards. Due to the removal of the AfD box and the statements of "we'll just re-add it", I recommend salting the article to protect against its creation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete it looks like an advertisement for the language, rather than an encyclopaedic entry. If this language deserves a page, it should be rewritten from scratch and provide some independent references that shows it's notability. 1700-talet (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete and salt All the current content is by one SPA who has been very disruptive, insulting editors and trying to "own" the article, removing any additions by other editors, especially tags, such as the tag for this AFD. However, the question of notability of the Arka Language must be considered separately from the conduct of this editor. Several editors, including very experienced editors NawlinWiki and Rich Farmbrough have expressed concerns about notability, and I searched for some before reinstating the notability tag, which was repeatedly removed. Like Tokyogirl79 above, I could not find anything in a reliable source. A basic Google search for "Arka Language" produces 3,550 matches, but (other then Wikipedia and its mirrors) these all appear to be self-published or promotional. I tried to explain Wikipedia's requirements to the SPA editor, in both edit summaries and on his user page, inviting them to supply references from independent reliable sources. The first time, the SPA added the initial paragraph containing lots of self-references. I can only assume that, as someone who is so keen to promote this subject, cannot come up with reliable sources to demonstrate notability, there are none. Returning to the SPA editor, given the statement "it's no use deleting it, cos our master isn't interested in wikipedia thing and we will rewrite the article in the future" it should also be salted. Arjayay (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: ARKA HAS ENOUGH NOTABILITY AND IT WAS A FAN WHO WROTE THE ARTICLE. TROLLS FROM ZBB ARE TYRING TO DELETE ARKA'S PAGE. IT'S JUST A HARASSMENT. THEY ARE JUST JEALOUS OF THIS ELABORATE CONLANG, SO DO NOT DELETE IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouehfds (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Delete OK, playtime's over. Back to Area 51 with you or the asylum director will have to order more electroshock. EEng (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)