Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Klingon Way

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 no consensus. The possibility of merging in the future is, as ever, an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The Klingon Way

The Klingon Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable (fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK). WP:TNT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Widefox; talk 22:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, I was not able to find a single book review that could help with WP:NBOOK. Anything salvageable can be moved to Marc Okrand though without sources there really isn't anything to save. - Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of copies and general reviews at Goodreads and Abebooks. Did someone notify the Star Trek project about this? It seems like a good start of a page, and of course, as do tens of thousands of pages, it needs citations, but there is no reason to delete. Randy Kryn 16:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

As in, no WP:RS. That is a reason to delete per WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Many new sources added on October 9 (see below), including an audiobook and its review by the Calgary Herald. Widefox, good job in pushing article improvement with this page, but maybe now please consider withdrawing this nomination? Thanks. Randy Kryn 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing still (11/10/16) fails GNG and NBOOK (see below). Widefox; talk 12:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Reluctant Delete per nom. If more real-world context and third-party sourcing was available I might be persuaded otherwise, but I'm not finding evidence that that level of improvement is realistically attainable. DonIago (talk) 17:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Delete, per the total lack of independent reliable sources either cited in the article or found by the various searches linked above, and this is a topic for which sources could be expected to be available online. Reviews in Goodreads and Abebooks are user generated, so it doesn't matter how many of them there might be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• Source, here is one source that mentions the book, from the Washington City Paper (which has a page here). There are many internet sources and reviews, but at least this one is a "real" publication. Randy Kryn 17:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• The grand total of the coverage in that article is the single sentence, 'Meanwhile, Okrand has just released The Klingon Way: A Warrior’s Guide, featuring a slew of Klingon proverbs: “Revenge is a dish best served cold.”'. How can that one sentence in a local newspaper be the basis of an encyclopedia article? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• It confirms that the book exists, confirms that is contains a "slew" of Klingon proverbs (which is a basis of the page), and even quotes one. Is that really a Klingon proverb? I thought it was an older saying, or maybe the Klingon's picked it up on a radio broadcast (and I thought Klingons like all of their dishes served either cold or wriggling). Will look for more sources later. Randy Kryn 20:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• See Revenge#Proverbs for evidence that this proverb didn't originate with this book, or with Klingons. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't intend to claim that this proverb quoted by me as an example of the book structure is something originally "Klingon". Claiming that would be: 1) presenting own reasearch rather than documented research; 2) accepting an "in-universe approach". It was just an example, chosen by me by hazard, and nothing more.noychoH (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Randy Kryn [1] is a passing mention so doesn't count for one of minimum two in WP:NBOOK 1. Without a single WP:RS this is an argument to delete, per my nom. It doesn't even meet GNG or NBOOK. Not one RS so far, I couldn't find one quickly which is why I nommed per WP:BEFORE. Widefox; talk 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, many reasons why I object to deletion (apart from the fact that I have created the article) are presented in the talk page to the article. The final one is that I believe in Wikiedia as a communal creation, I have created the basic stub, somone has added it to soem Wiki-community projects, someone will add some sources with quotations etc. Rome wasn't built in a day, it is very easy to destroy (delete), it is hard and time consuming to create. The attitude of the users who prefer destroying others' work to improving and commonly building is one of the reasons why many of my friedns have stopped working with Wikipedia altogether and I am also more often reluctant to start someting new, fearing that my effort would be destroyed by some fanatic of perfection from the very beginning. (no offence meant). noychoH (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• What more, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Widefox, by reverting on 01:00, 30 September 2016 my edition, has deleted in fact several improvements introduced by me to the original article after his original critique - and despite my request in his discussion page to restore my editions first before adding the AfD template anew, he has not done it, although he has confirmed having read my request. (I have made my request to him to be polite to him and honest with him and also in order not to be accused of entering a war of editions). Unfortunately, I had technical problems with connecting to Wikipedia 24 hours ago, so I couldn't revert his edit myself, once having realised that he is not willing to show a bit of undertanding. Now I have to describe his attitude as not fully honest. noychoH (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

For the record, noychoH didn't dePROD as claimed [2], so I correctly took that as contesting the PROD, and waited for the dePROD, waited, messaged [3], waited, then took to AfD. noychoH then incorrectly removed the AfD (rather than PROD) [4] which I correctly reverted [5]. NoychoH, can you say what's not honest about me following policy? I've even explained your error to you here [6]. That accusation is a gross violation of WP:AGF, which reflects on you not me. Care to see the facts and strike? Widefox; talk 22:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know why the annoucement on dePRODING appeared on your talk page and the (earlier) act of dePRODing did not appear, there were some technical problems with my connection to Wikipedia for a few hours, so when I have realized that the dePRODing did not appear I have reinstated it, that's all. Your have reverted not only the dePROD template but all the 312 character long edit. When I got a connection again I saw that, and I have written to you explaining what happened and why, but you didn't react. Then I've lost the connection again and this has lasted till this morning. Now, above I did not say anything about your following the policy - as you could see, even yesterday I accepted it as a fact. But, following a policy is a formal rule that can be done by a machine as well. - I was talking about your lack of reaction to the whole situation, after you have read my request - which is related to a more human approach of understanding the context of the situation, the other's difficulties etc. I would have thanked you, had you paid attention to my request, but you just skipped over it. I didn't mean to offend you. Excuse me. noychoH (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
• I do not want the whole issue to start resembling a personal dispute between two Users. Let it not cover the main point of this dicsussion: whether the article is good (even if only as a starting point), encyclopedic, needed, etc. and worth to be kept, or not. noychoH (talk) 22:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just check the edits, you undid the AfD not PROD. That is not allowed. End of story. This is both offtopic and moot. Without sources this will be deleted. Please see WP:ILIKE. Widefox; talk 23:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Just one final word to explain myself. It was not done with the undoing or reverting. Having realised that my editions were not saved to Wikipedia, I have simply copied and pasted the whole text of my edition from my notepad (where I usually paste it before clicking Save), without even realising that you had alread changed PROD into AfD (Maybe even my computer didn't show it, and showed something from the cache instead?? I've told you already that there were some technical problems that night). noychoH (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There's now 6 sources, 2x trivial mentions (doesn't count for notability), and 4x others from Klingon Language Institute which according to our article is not fully independent of the author / advocacy group, so doesn't count for notability. I've tagged the article third party sources. There's still zero third party RS for notability. Widefox; talk 23:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The more specialized the subject, the less possibility that there is an independent review different from a "trivial mention" (who is able to make a noteworthy review of a book on Bembe or Yukaghir language if one does not know the language? Who can spot printing errors in Klingon words if not a person who speaks Klingon? And most of those who are able to understand and speak or even write in Klingon, are members of the KLI, for practical reasons). The Wikpedia articles on higher algebra only cite the sources of those who practice higher algebra, often of their own professors. This does not mean they belong to their advocacy group.

It is obvious that a given Shakespeare Society's publication are highly dependant on Shakespeare, likewise KLI's publication, concentrating on the Klingon language as its object of research, are highly dependant on Klingon language resources, and these are not so numerous. Nevertheless HolQeD during 13 years of its existence was a reputed linguistic journal, with articles listed in the MLA reference publications. The articles published there are not "hymns to the praise of Marc Okrand" but they treat the subject in a neutral way. They admit his authority in the matters where he constitutes a real authority, like creation of new words, but not necessarily otherwise (similarly as Zamenhof constituted an authority in the beginning of the Esperanto movement for the authors of Esperanto dictionaries and grammars, but not necessarily in everything). Especially one should take take into consideration context of the lawsuits concerning the intelectual property rights to Klingon language (Marc Okrand alone was comissioned by the Paramount Pictures to create/build the Klingon language and authorised to develop it subsequently). Your opinion on HolQeD based on the Wikpedia article Klingon Language Institute is at the best a hasty overinterpretation of the information contained within that article (leading to a grave misinterpretation of the facts). Neither KLI as a whole nor single KLI members publishing their articles in HolQeD do belong to Marc Okrand's advocacy group. Nor is Marc Okrand a member of KLI, or a person related to the board, he is just their guest from time to time.

In my talk page I have typed in some excerpts from the review by Captain Krankor, in oder to show you (an the others interested) the level of scholarly work and independent research (beyond simply quoting Marc Okrand) done. noychoH (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Although there's merit in the level of independence argument, that source still doesn't count per WP:NBOOK 1. This excludes... author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book (emphasis own). Even if it was a WP:RS (which should be taken to the WP:RSN) - how can we build an WP:NPOV article if the only sources are from a) one source b) which is an advocacy group? WP is WP:NOT WP:SOAPBOX, we're not an extension of one website. Widefox; talk 10:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• CommentDelete it anyhow - I can see that the more the article is improved, the more objections from Widefox does it raise. He introduces new tags but does not care to remove the tags that are no more valid or are obviously false from the beginning, like the {in-universe|date=September 2016} one. It seems to me that the article will be deleted anyhow, so it is a waste of time to try to improve it. noychoH (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

See [7]. Widefox; talk 00:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

(excuse me, I've removed the non-applicable tags, anyone could have done it BTW). Widefox; talk 00:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Because of your previous reactions I was afraid of removing anything introduced by you, not to be accused of e.g. starting edit-wars. Who can delete tags if not the one who has introduced them (who else can know the intention behind a tag than the one who introduced it)? But encouraged by you, I understand now that after making some more improvements, I am now allowed to delete the tags as well.

The problem is that you seem to be very strict about everything (too strict in fact, to my taste. E.g. your presumption of bad faith on my side on an accidental replacing of your signature with some meaningless content (yet not being a vandalism) - how does it differ from my earlier words about your not being fully honest, apart from the words themselves being used? It's not a rhetorical question so if you answer me, I'd like to know your opinion. But it's OK, if you don't want to, dont't worry, just think about it. I have now striked through my earlier words, to wit, previously I didn't fully understand what you meant by: "Care to see the facts and strike?", I think this is a shortcut that allows for different interpretations, anyhow, I was more concentrating on "see the facts" and why you don't want to see the other side of the facts.

I have explained in your talk page why I consider this space to be a relevant place for this kind of discussion in this context. noychoH (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi noychoH. Maybe you should strike out either your "Keep" or "Delete" comment, as you've now 'voted' both ways. It's a good page, so I hope you remove your delete comment. Some editors are what we call 'deletionists', and they will find reasons to delete just about anything they set their mind to. I don't know why. But please don't let it discourage you enough to delete your own page, which might have to be called it's own genre of editor (self-deletionists?), defined as "Those who create good pages and then lobby to delete them even as they try to improve them". A symbol for self-deletionists can be designed which they can put on the top of their user page. What goes around comes around, and then gets deleted. Randy Kryn 15:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't some childish dispute between "deletionists" and "inclusionists", but an issue of whether this article conforms to the basic requirement of being based on significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you and NoychoH and NoychoH's friends want to write about things that don't belong in Wikipedia then there are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can do so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Randy Kryn, for your advice. noychoH (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:86.17.222.157 is right. Attempts to personalise just indicate being too emotionally involved and get in the way of core principles. The AGF violations have gone too far and are tiresome. What is this anyhow, a fan thing, POV pushing or a WP:COI? Hey, I'm a Star Trek fan but suggest this is Salted to prevent further attempts at recreation and abuse of other volunteers. This is just not acceptable noychoH. Widefox; talk 09:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I completely do not understand what you mean, as a whole. (I am not a Star Trek fan, I am just "fan" of the Klingon language and other constructed languages, just like authors of the articles on higher algebra are "fans" of mathematics. And I am not against other users improving on what I have done, just the contrary). But I am not familiar with discussions using a hundred of acronyms instead of normal words. It's like instead od saying "understand" I would say COD1266-7 (leaving for you to divine that I mean "Concise Oxford Ditionary [of Current English, sixth edition, 1976], pages 1266-1267, and which of the numerous meaning contained within the article on "understand" do I mean). Your are breaking the basic rules of human communication, and Randy Kryn was right in describing your attitude, and I start wondering if have been right in striking out what I have striked out. You may ban me now, if you like. Anyhow, I am also tired with all this, and since now on I shall not say a word. Let it go as it goes. noychoH (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

(linked above). WP:FAN seems to be the most pertinent, where concentrating on notability is helpful. Trying to retain this article in the face of our policies is what? Calling others names (ad hominem) just because they don't agree with you reflects badly, and I advise to strike this nonsense. (I've given a L3 warning to the editor that this is unacceptable, despite two of us pointing this out). Widefox; talk 12:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Calling someone a deletionist is not a "name", it's a description (Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia). I'm a self-defined inclusionist. And the above "If you and NoychoH and NoychoH's friends want to write about things that don't belong in Wikipedia..." qualifies as deletionist language, so pointing that out is not nonsense or calling names, but a factual point in this discussion. Randy Kryn 13:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No it's not "deletionist language", but simply a statement of Wikipedia's core principles and an attempt to help you find an outlet for such writings. I have no time for anyone who defines themselves as either "deletionist" or "inclusionist", because they are both childish tribal labels that take no account of the policies and guidelines agreed here by consensus. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, The Irish Times is a very reliable source, and combined with other sources the article is now well-sourced, is a topic which many readers are interested in, and the original author has added to the page and has accurately defended this page. Some editors who still want this page deleted may think that articles about the Klingon language do not belong in Wikipedia, as was mentioned in the above discussion, but the language seems to be very well documented, sourced, and a part of both the Star Trek culture and the real-world culture. With the addition of the sources, especially The Irish Times, maybe this deletion request should be withdrawn. Full disclosure, I am a fan but not a fanatic about Star Trek, do not speak or write Klingon or know anyone who does (besides NoychoH, who I've just "met" after coming upon his new page, and who I've asked to tell me how my user name would be written and pronounced in Klingon and he has ignored my polite request! Grrr, roar, gnnork), but I do believe that articles about the language are perfectly fine as subjects to be covered in this encyclopedia, and that this article is now a very good page pertaining to the subject thanks in large part to the pressure put upon it by this deletion discussion. Randy Kryn 13:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

See above (passing mentions don't count for notability per WP:GNG and "non-trivial" in WP:NBOOK). Restating it does nothing, as what you believe is irrelevant in the face of basics such as WP:N and WP:RS. I count zero refs for notability (above). Best to focus on finding sources for notability rather than blaming the messenger and speculating the motivations of other editors per WP:AGF. Widefox; talk 20:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I pointed out above that the Washington City Paper only had one sentence about the subject, so doesn't amount to significant coverage, but The Irish Times has even less than that, as it covers five books in a single sentence. As I've already said, I'm sure that there are wikis for fans of constructed languages and/or Star Trek on the Internet that welcome such original research, but Wikipedia doesn't. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for calling you a deletionist. I don't know if you are or not, and have not looked at your contributions page. It just makes me sad the few times I've been involved in deletion discussions how many good pages must be removed on a daily and weekly basis, and I'm taking that out on you guys. And I want to assure you that I have no interest in writing about Klingon language on any blog, but thank you for the suggestion. I know as much about the language as I do about any obscure tribal language. But it is a language, and there certainly seems nothing wrong in having Wikipedia articles about it, so I was a bit confused why you kept wanting me to write on a blog and that this seemingly accepted language doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You are apparently saying it in good faith, so I'll respect your point of view. But since other articles about the language exist on Wikipedia, and this has been called a canonical book by the languages' leading journal, it seems like an easy Keep now. This is mainly because you and Widefox pushed the original writer, and I fell into it while on an italics run, and helped out at first because it's a Star Trek related page. Then you've pushed both of us, and I think the page shaped up under that deletion pressure. But now I think it's fine, and those journal cites should probably be the thing saving it. Randy Kryn 1:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a powerful argument. How can it be fine with 0 (zero) RS (per above notability)? Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment to closer, there are multiple cites on the page from HolQeD. The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute, which was published quarterly for 13 years by the Klingon Language Institute. Now, if this was a book about medicine, or about astronomy, or just about anything, a professional journal apparently respected as the main journal of the subject, in this case the Klingon language, would be accepted immediately as a source. Why not this one? If you notice in some of the above comments, I've been told several times that if I and others want to write about this subject that we should take it to some kind of blog. I've seldom seen this type of bad faith at Wikipedia, and I've stopped answering those comments. I don't care a hoot about the Klingon language, but it seems to be a notable subject both here and elsewhere. And its top organization, the Klingon Language Institute, which used to publish the accepted journal of the field, a journal which is referenced several times on the page, calls The Klingon Way one of the canon books in that field. If the Journal of the American Medical Association called a book a canon in its field, that source would be accepted without question. I think the same courtesy should be extended to this page. Randy Kryn 22:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

One source (and an advocacy one at that) for a whole article doesn't fit our core principles (per above). This is better elsewhere like a specialist wiki as correctly recommended. Widefox; talk 15:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

• merge/redirect to author. Trim unreferenced stuff. - üser:Altenmann >t 08:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, c'mon, this is an important book, we may as well delete the articles on the Oxford dictionary or the Bible's Book of Proverbs!, anyway, disappointing that the author article, doesn't have more on this book, so if this article goes under, a paragraph could be added there. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Redirect to Marc Okrand (and protect it) We require reliable third party sources specifically so that we know that the topic was noticed by the world at large and we do not become a collection of indiscriminate information. The Klingon institute is too affiliated to be of use here. I think a redirect is best here. If at all any information needs to be merged (though I don't see a reason for merging), it will be available from the history. Personally, I think for stuff like this Wikia is the best place to create articles. The Wikis over there are specifically devoted to a particular fandom and also edited by enthusiasts. It's a great way of preserving information not suitable for a general purpose encyclopaedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Note to closer if we redirect (which is also fine by me), then please protect to prevent recreation and a repeat of abuse per above. Widefox; talk 09:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. This definitely needs to be protected. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Selectively merge to Mark Okrand. The Klingon Institute-related sources establish that the book is of interest to some readers, but the independent sources aren't sufficient to establish notability apart from Okrand or Klingon fandom. Cnilep (talk) 23:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Further comment to closer, there are only 15 blue linked pages in List of Star Trek reference books, and this is now one of them (the listing was red-linked before). Please note the words and mocking tone on this nomination page, and the requests for the people "defending" it to go away, to go to a wiki, or a blog. As I've said, I know nothing of this language, but it is a real language and other pages on Wikipedia show that it has been accepted here. The original editor has done a fine job, above, of defending the Journal as a reputable journal. He shows that it is not closely related to the book aside from being from the same field, the study of the Klingon language. I hope you are not a nose-counter, but a closer who takes time to study this discussion, the page itself, and the related pages. I see this page as a fine addition to the Star Trek collection on Wikipedia, and hopefully, as one of only 15 blue-linked Star Trek reference books, it will avoid the pattern of Star Trek red-uniforms and escape falling into a red-link again. Thanks. Randy Kryn 00:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• Please stop interpreting well-meaning advice about where to find a suitable place for such writing as being told to go away. Nobody has said that you as a person are not welcome here, but we are discussing whether this article should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
• My advice wasn't "mocking" or anything. Wikia is a pretty good place to keep this information. See memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/The_Klingon_Way. It allows for a much lower threshold of RS which I think is necessary for a specialised fandom encyclopaedia. I'm a fan of Harry Potter myself and for detailed descriptions of characters, I generally consult the Harry Potter wikia and not Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lemongirl1942. Again, it seems that the Klingon language has been recognized here and elsewhere as a legitimate language. I am not a speaker or fan of the language, or have any interest in reading or writing about it on a wikia blog, but others may, and some others will look to Wikipedia for the information. Since you are a Harry Potter franchise fan (as are we all), this would be like removing Potter pages from Wikipedia because some editors feel they do not fit, that they are not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia. My point, and a point ably discussed by the original editor, is that the Journal of the Klingon Language Institute is a legitimate and professional source, that it regards this book as canon, and as the main journal pertaining to a modern tribal-like constructed language its cites are adequate to keep The Klingon Way as an article here. Replace the word "Klingon" with "Esperanto" and this would be an easy Keep. Randy Kryn 11:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The notability of Klingon is WP:NOTINHERITED by this book. The single source is an issue. As for Esperanto and Harry Potter, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't powerful. These are all covered above (and on your talk Randy Kryn). Widefox; talk 16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Many Potter pages have been merged/redirected, which is exactly what I am suggesting here. Most Harry Potter pages have multiple reliable third party sources describing them. That's missing here. I would have accepted the journal but I don't see any indication that is a well known peer reviewed journal. And even if I accept that, it is still one review. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Really, the best thing those who feel this article should be kept could do is provide at least one independent source that discusses the book in some detail. That would be a much more productive approach than arguing about it here. DonIago (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

• weak keep We've got two mainstream sources that mention it and rather specialized sources that have reviewed it. The question is if the specialized sources are independent enough, and other than the nature of the narrow topic, they seem to be. Hobit (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC) Updated to a pure keep based on sources listed below. Hobit (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The mentions don't count for notability. A single advocacy source isn't in line with core principles. Widefox; talk 14:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

They do count, just not for much. For WP:N, I'm relying on the reviews. But the reviews are coming from what is, in effect, a "walled garden" of a hyper-specialized area. I prefer to see at least some impact outside of that narrow area. And mentions like the ones we have are exactly that. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Where does it say it counts? At WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK it says "two or more non-trivial", i.e. these trivial do not count. Explicitly. There's no walled garden, there's just no coverage. If we drop the bar for notability so low that an article requires just a single source from a non-RS journal from their own advocacy group, then that's WP:INDISCRIMINATE with no chance at NPOV etc. It's fundamentally WP:NOT. Widefox; talk 18:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think they are "trivial mentions". They only mention it once, but in both cases, they go out of their way to do so when providing background. Certainly not hugely in-depth, but relevant none-the-less. And which of the 4 prongs of INDISCRIMINATE does this even in theory violate? In all cases, we've met WP:V, we've got a case (like it or not) for WP:N. And yes, we often weigh sources by their quality. It's not unusual for something to be kept if we've got two strong sources. It's also not unusual to keep something that has one strong source and a lot of much weaker ones. This is common practice--it's not a bright line that once you're over it counts toward WP:N and if you aren't, it doesn't. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

A trivial/passing mention isn't what you think it is. There's consensus here they are trivial/passing mentions and as we go by consensus for common practice your second point seems moot. Per INDISCRIMINATE To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Widefox; talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. Fancruft; two passing mentions in newspapers do not amount to the coverage in third-party sources required per WP:GNG. The fan institute and its writings do not seem sufficiently independent and reliable. Possibly also redirect and protect as suggested.  Sandstein  12:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge very selectively to Klingon language#Sources. The sources mention it in passing but not in detail, and obviously the KLI is not an independent source here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Redirect (or possibly a selective merge) to Klingon language#Sources. The author's article is a perfectly acceptable target, but maybe the Klingon article will give readers more info about the language, which is presumably what they're seeking. There's been a lot of discussion about the sources, but I'm just not seeing how they can establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and the fact that something exists is simply not good enough for an entry in a general-purpose encyclopedia. I'm unconvinced that the Klingon Language Institute can establish notability, as it's more-or-less Okrand's fan club. It's like how half of those Transformers articles are sourced to official fan club magazines. I'm sure the fan club magazines have lots of useful info, but they can't establish notability by themselves. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep as I don't buy the independence arguments. Having said that why not, given that editor opinions differ ,merge instead to the author's article? It seems like a ton of virtual ink has been spilled when the middle ground--cover the book, but not with its own standalone article--is clearly preferred in deletion policy, WP:ATD-M.Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

  Striking my previous merge opinion in view of the increasingly large constellation of reliable sources, and the increasingly shrill objections of the nominator. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Except it's not just independence, but also "self-interested parties" WP:NBOOK, single source, there's no WP:RSN, fails WP:BOOKCRIT 1. no, 2. no, 3. no, 4. no, 5. no. . The journal is hardly Nature, but indulging... our guideline....WP:SCHOLARSHIP says to check citation indexes. Not done. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (emphasis own). A shred of evidence would help any argument trying to make the claim this is an RS. Anyone done that? Widefox; talk 18:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Since when is Klingon (or Klingon Language, for that matter) a point of view? You're not helping your cause out here by throwing around language that clearly doesn't apply. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN it's for those claiming the journal is a RS to reason it with that guideline when challenged, which has not been done yet. Don't think anyone disputes KLI's goal "Its goal is to promote the Klingon language and culture". Widefox; talk 10:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Move to lead editor's user space for continued revision and redirect to Okrand in the interim ... or just delete: the cited sources seem to substantiate the book's content Some cited sources are self-published wikis that fail to meet WP:RS. The Irish Times article does not mention this book at all, and likewise the cited academic journal is about a different Klingon text. The article does not even assert, absent substantiation, that the book is significant -- and, I doubt substantiation for such a claim (for a niche publication over 20 years old) exists. In other words, I believe the subject fails WP:GNG. Still, if someone's interested in working on the article without a looming AfD deadline, perhaps shift it to a willing participant's user space so interested folks can continue to scour for third-party commentary at their own pace and ping the wikiproject page for feedback before a possible re-introduction as an article. Such a rewrite would need to articulate why the book matters, and not just what's inside. But, considering it's a long shot, I don't think it's appropriate for this article to linger in article spaaaaaaaace, the final frontier. --EEMIV (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Merge In addition to the sources above, there is a brief mention of the book in the journal of Science Fiction Studies[8]. There are also 34 hits in GScholar, and skimming a number of those indicate that this book is a good or possibly canonical source for Klingon quotes. So the book is clearly of note by a specialized subset of academic community, but I have not found any in depth commentary on the book itself. Hence the book seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. But per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, preserving verifiable material is preferable to deletion. In this case, selective merge of basic facts about the book is supported by multiple brief reliable sources and total deletion would be against policy. I think Klingon language#Sources is the best target, but the author's article would be fine, too. --Mark viking (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Jclemens also said to merge, so you're agreeing to that too? Widefox; talk 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I've now struck my merge opinion, see above. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Pinging Miyagawa who has access to a number of Star Trek sources and may be able to shed some light on this. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I was expecting to see a mention of this in Voyages of Imagination, which is the sourcebook for the fiction novels in the Star Trek universe - however, there wasn't even a mention of The Klingon Way at all. Miyagawa (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Sources: I've had a look through some databases, and here's what I came up with.
  • A mention ("...including The Klingon Way (with recipes for Duani lizard skins and the complete lyrics to the Warrior's Anthem)...") in The Irish Times. A good source but not enough to establish notability.
  • A review of the audiobook in the Calgary Herald. A good source and helps along the way to notability.

    McKenzie, Grant (January 25, 1997). "The accent's on audio". Calgary Herald. p. E15.

  • A passing mention, with a general discussion about Okrand's work, in The Globe and Mail. A good source, but does not establish notability of the book.
  • Similar in The Ottawa Citizen (with roughly the same article in The Toronto Star). Again; good source, but does not establish notability.
  • A passing mention in Star Trek: A Post-structural Critique of the Original Series, but with a note that the book has been "embraced" by some. Possibly helpful for notability.
  • Discussion on Motherboard, which seems to be from Vice Media, so a good indication of notability.
• Keep, based on the sources above and in the article, especially HolQeD. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

  Good finds, and thanks for adding the audiobook and its review into the page itself. As said before, this page has benefited by this nomination and discussion, yet maybe now is a good time to withdraw this nom. The preponderance of sources now seems to have met notability, and the tags on the page are all falling to the wayside. Randy Kryn 16:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• I, for one, certainly don't withdraw my "delete" opinion. The sources offerred above are pure barrel-scraping, and don't amount to the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that we require for all subjects, including articles about topics related to Star Trek and constructed languages. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with IP editor - as passing mentions don't count for notability, several of them still don't count (n x 0 = 0). [9] is a passing mention too. Widefox; talk 23:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Widefox, did you read the new section on the audiobook and its review in the Calgary Herald? And that the audiobook was read by the actor who played Worf? That's notable in itself, let alone to have a major newspaper review the audiobook. It is my uninformed understanding that a main reason that pages are put on deletion review is that interested editors will then improve them. This has been done here, by several editors. As the nominator I hope that a reason you nominate pages here is that there would be saves. This does seem like a save. Randy Kryn 00:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes my comment is based on these new sources. I can't verify the audiobook as I didn't find it on Google or using the info in the citation. The notability of the audiobook (not notable with 1 RS four sentences) is NOTINHERITED from Worf or it's actor. If counting that for the book, that results in 1 RS four sentences which is still short or GNG/NBOOK and we can't make an article about the book based on 1 RS four sentences (and the audiobook would presumably be a related media with different code/ISBN, so is tangential and wouldn't help us build an article much). This isn't a vote and arguments based on policy/guideline have more weight. Widefox; talk 12:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on sources

1. This motherboard/Vice media source is a trivial mention. I don't see any significant coverage of the book itself.
2. I am unable to find a link to the review of the audio book. Can anyone provide the link? A database link would be OK as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree. We can't base an book article on 1 RS which is for an audiobook (irrespective of being able to verify it or not). Impossible to even write a WP:PERMASTUB as it fails GNG. Per WP:Indiscriminate (above), sure we can verify it exists, doesn't pass the most basic of notability, and not enough to write an article. This is unlikely to be WP:TOOSOON as it's years ago. Widefox; talk 13:21, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: Thankfully, there is no requirement that you, Widefox, are personally able to verify the existence of a review in order for that review to count as a reliable source. It can be checked by anyone with access to Nexis; unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be veering dangerously close to accusing me of making up the source. We now have a review of the audiobook in a broadsheet newspaper, a review of the book itself in a (weird but nonetheless scholarly) journal, and several mentions in journalistic and academic sources indicating that the book has some considerable significance for fans of Star Trek. In my judgement, that's enough. You don't have to agree with me, but it'd be nice if you tried to treat me as something other than a possibly-lying-but-clearly-deluded fool, which is definitely the impression I'm getting from you now. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And the whole "permastub" rhetoric is inappropriate, as well. There are plenty of sources which are worth citing but which nonetheless do not meet the bar for the purposes of the GNG. The Institute, the book itself and other work to which the author has contributed could all be cited. Additionally, we have the various sources third-party sources that have been listed which mention the book without being about it. I can't see the article ever being long, but it could certainly be more than a stub. Again- reasonable people can disagree, but let's not overstate our cases. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: I'm aware of that, which is why I added "irrespective of being able to verify it or not" meaning I don't personally need to see it to believe it's there. In your opinion the journal counts as an RS? I'm not sure where your tone is from, but it's clear my words have given you an impression I never intended. In that respect, if you reread now I've reiterated that you don't need to clarify about WP:V with me, you'll see that your comment fails WP:AGF straw-man. I do expect you to strike once you've realised this. As our guideline says such a journal is not an RS, I'm curious about your reply, and would help keep this about the sources. It only further illustrates how this needs protecting due to wild accusations. Widefox; talk 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it common practice to stub articles as we base on reliable secondaries? This is moot as we have only 1 RS four sentences, but just clarifying common practice which I hardly call "rhetoric". I'm also not the only person claiming this doesn't meet GNG, or is not convinced of the sources, so I'm hardly an outlier here. Widefox; talk 22:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

You've made up your mind on this article, and that's fine, but your continued patronising, belittling tone is making me quite sure I have no interest in dealing with you. I have nothing further to say. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The review doesn't count per Lemongirl942 (below). (And, that does have nothing to do with me). In the face of that assessment, the lack of sources speak for themselves for those open enough to comment on the sources rather than on other editors. Good day to you, Widefox; talk 09:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on Audio Book review I managed to hunt down the audio book review. It is part of a 610 word column which talks about. The entire coverage about the book is here (short enough to quote per fair use)

Well, since this column seems to be focusing on accents (Irish and British), how about a little Klingon? The Klingon Way is a warrior's guide to understanding such great Klingon proverbs as "Four Thousand throats my be cut in one night by a running man." Noted Klingon language and cultural expert Marc Okrand collects the wisdom of these great warriors and has two of TV's best-known Klingons (Lt. Worf from Star Trek: The Next Generation and B'Elanna Torres from Voyager) read the phrases in Klingon and explain their importance. If you've ever wanted to toss some conversational Klingon into a friendly chat, this audio will quickly have you up to speed and make you the hit of the next Trekker convention. Non-Trekkers, on the other hand, won't have a clue what they're listening to.

4 sentences is not significant coverage. Per WHYN and WP:PAGEDECIDE, I don't see a need for this to exist as a standalone article at this moment. The book hasn't received enough attention for that. My !vote for redirecting and selectively merging any content from the history stands. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree 100% . Widefox; talk 09:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion, as requested on my talk p. DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FANCRUFT. To parallel what 86.17.222.157 said, the only applicable content in the Irish Times piece is "and since then there have been a range of books, including The Klingon Way (with recipes for Duani lizard skins and the complete lyrics to the Warrior's Anthem)". There's not enough here to merit a standalone article and I'm disappointed the bar for inclusion has gotten so low. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  Although the Irish Times is only one source out of many now included on the page, and it's a good source as are most of the rest, WP:FANCRUFT does not apply here. The essay states "One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world." (boldface added). There is a real world institute academically focused on this language, there was a real world journal published by that institute, and there are real world speakers of this language. The institute, journal, and speakers apparantly consider this book canon. Randy Kryn 21:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  FANCRUFT "is often a succinct and frank description... it also implies that the content is unimportant and that the contributor's judgment of the topic's importance is clouded by fanaticism." which certainly is in play here. WP:NOTINHERITED applies, too. It doesn't matter if there's a real world institute about a debatably "real" language. That they consider this book canon doesn't make the book notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

  Do you think that the judgement of those of us who support keeping the article has been "clouded by fanaticism"? Josh Milburn (talk) 03:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from the keep arguments I'm seeing. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  We have discussion in an academic journal, a review in the mainstream press, and multiple mentions in the press and academic works, some of which indicate that the book is important to/for certain groups and others of which discuss the book in the context of the author's wider work. In my judgement, that's enough to support keeping an article. I'm not sure where the fanaticism enters, and neither am I sure why this discussion continues to get personal. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  Excuse me if I don't take The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute seriously. The mere mentions in newspapers are just that. I don't see general notability here. I'm not seeking to make the debate personal but I cannot understand the mental contortions being performed. GNG, based on this discussion, seems to be becoming a far lower bar than I think anyone ever intended. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  The journal is indexed by the Modern Language Association and cited/mentioned as a scholarly source in plenty of academic works (for example, here and here). We can have a serious discussion about its reliability and/or independence from the subject, but to scathingly/sarcastically dismiss it because it is affiliated with the Klingon Language Institute hardly seems fair. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  Your two examples are poor ones to use: the first is a mere mention in the discussion of invented languages and the second only says "There is a journal for the study of the Klingon language (HolQed)". Neither makes the journal notable and the journal's mention of the book doesn't convince me of GNG. In such a niche field that has very little to cover I'd posit one discussing the other is neither notable nor relevant. When The New York Times reviews the book I'll reconsider. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

  I didn't say that the journal was notable. All I said was that its existence as an academic journal is attested to in a number of reputable scholarly publications. You don't think that discussion of the book in this journal is of significance, I do. That's fine, we can disagree, but let's be clear about the issues at stake. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Merge - sorry, but after doing a bit of research, it's glaringly obvious that the article doesn't meet WP:N & WP:GNG, but as it could meet WP:NPOSSIBLE in the future, I agree that it should be merged with the author's page. I mean, the language obviously is notable, but that doesn't mean that the book (this article is about) is too. N. GASIETA|talk 21:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep, amomg the most oft-repeated delete rationale is that this is some novelty. Nonetheless, it seems the article discusses the discusses a book that gives an outline for a prominent linguistic phenomenon and the sources did seem satisfactory to me. Pwolit iets (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Stop the presses (always wanted to say that), I've come across a pretty good answer to editors who have questioned Klingon's status as a real language during this discussion (which I guess I mentally did as well, to tell the truth, but am getting to like the concept more as this delete discussion continues. It seems an interesting experiment in sound-to-symbol system evolution). Much of The Klingon Way's right to exist as a Wikipedia page seems to rest on the question that some have posed about the Klingon language, the Klingon Language Institute, and its academic journal, to paraphrase, "Is Wikipedia the right place to include articles about this made-up language, or should the acceptance and information about Klingon be left to fan-sites and blogs?". So, after this longwinded intro, and in defense of keeping our page on what apparently is one of this weird languages' canonical books, here is a sentence from our Klingon language article: "The 2003–2010 version of the puzzle globe logo of Wikipedia, representing its multilingualism, contained a Klingon character." Randy Kryn 2:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Of the 16 languages represented on Wikipedia's historic first silver-ball logo, the Klingon letter is the one here, on the top right. I guess it might represent something close to a 'W' in Klingon. Randy Kryn, 2:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• New source added, an editor has added a new source] to the page, From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages by Michael Adams published in 2011. Randy Kryn 13:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a great source and worth citing in the article, but it should be noted that Okrand is one of the authors of that chapter, so it isn't as helpful for notability as it may first seem. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks, didn't know that. Yet it is at least another source, as it seems Michael Adams either edited or wrote the book, and had to both ask the author to add information to his book and also, hopefully, fact-check the author's work. The cites of the journal, to me, do establish notability, and combined with the rest should be enough to keep the article mainspaced. Especially with Wikipedia's use of the Klingon "letter" (sound? growl?) in the open-globe image from 2003 to 2010, one of only 16 languages chosen. If the main academic journal of this Wikipedia-honored language calls a book 'canon', that has got to count for something. Randy Kryn 18:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Can anyone locate a copy of "Krankor, Captain (June 1996). "From the Grammarian's Desk". HolQeD. The Journal of the Klingon Language Institute. 5 (2 (18)): 2–6. ISSN 1061-2327." ? I cannot even confirm such an article exists outside this Wikipedia. It seems that it is not digitized at all :( PS. If you reply to me, please echo me back. Tnx. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I have contacted what I think is the publisher and they say it was an article but that republication rights in electronic media are less than clear and won't share it with me. It is apparently republished in [10]. Hobit (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
• I'd like to think that with a little tightening up and a few more sources, this could be a just fine article. However, it seems to me that with all the discussion that's taken place on this page, that if such edits would improve the article duly, they would have been made. As such, I recommend merging the content into the Klingon language article. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I did intend to spend some time on the article, but I have been very busy and was put off by the way this discussion was going. I may try to put something together this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 04:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

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.