Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep.

While reading through many of the comments below, I note a large number of new and/or anonymous users whose votes have to be steeply discounted. I also note from the comments that many of the people who chose to participate in this discussion are expressing opinions which are at variance to my understanding of our general community norms on similar issues. While there is a clear concensus to keep the article at this time, great caution should be used before considering this a precedent for other decisions. Rossami (talk) 02:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Toki Pona[edit]

non-notable, not encyclopedic, its a created language (created 2001). Its own creator states there are maybe 12 users worldwide able to converse in it. Does this really belong on here? Alkivar 00:35, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh and just for good measure this counts as Original research as the language creator is User:Sonjaaa and while we're at it the vanity page Sonja Elen Kisa for user Sonjaaa should go too.  ALKIVAR™
  • Keep. There's a Wikipedia in that language. Etz Haim 01:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And google is in l33t, pig latin, and swedish chef too... doesnt make it noteable or encyclopedic.
Leet has a remarkably expansive entry: and see also B1FF, Pwn, Teh, w00t... Pig latin has a decent article, and Swedish Chef discusses his language. There are systemic biases in favour of both Western English cultural ephemera and computer geek subjects on Wikipedia, hence w00t - fair enough, "hard disks are cheap." But a conlang with a modest but earnest following sticking with it after a few years - larger than some ancient endangered languages - based on the religious philosophy of Taoism, and a demonstration of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, is certainly notable enough for me. Samaritan 06:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Constructed languages don't have to be popular to be notable. They are often interesting and unique examples of what languages can be. Though I found Toki's syntax interesting enough, I'm not sure if it's truely encyclopedic. Intangir 02:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*Not sure. As mentioned elsewhere a google search for "Toki Pona" brings up 26,000 pages. However , about 18,000 of them are wikipedia related, and therefore a little suspect(a google search of ' "Toki Pona" -wikipedia ', gives only 7,650 results). Intangir 03:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, never mind I'd forgotten about Google's pig latin, too. Wyss 04:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! I honestly don't know how many people use the language, although the estimation of 12 seems far too low to me. But, does it matter? Most constructed languages, Toki Pona included, were not created with the purpose of acquiring a community of speakers; instead, they were created as works of art. Establishing the significance of such a language by the number of people who actually use it is the same thing as establishing the significance of a symphony by the size of the orchestra that performs it. If you really want to know how wikifiable a constructed language is, you'll need to find out how complete it is, which degree of esteem it has received inside and outside the conlang community, and how verifiable all this is. Well, Toki Pona scores well on all these fronts. A simple google for "Toki Pona" generates no less than 26,400 hits; seventeen wikipedias feature an article about it, while numerous other wikis refer to it in other articles. As an insider I can assure you that Toki Pona enjoys a high reputation; in fact, it is one of the most successful artistic languages ever created, especially if you consider the fact that it lacks a book or a movie as a vehicle. The article definitely deserves to stay! IJzeren Jan 06:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep One of the most interesting things I have seen on wikipedia. Kensho 06:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Toki Pona and the Sonja Elen Kisa vanity page. The article is just promo for a personal project. As for the wiki, note that Jimbo Wales eventually said something like "Um, that was a mistake". The Toki Pona wiki is no longer hosted by Wikipedia. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:03, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I stand corrected. Sonja Elen Kisa isn't a vanity page. Wile E. Heresiarch 00:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC))
    • Hum! According to Wikipedia:Vanity page, a "vanity page" is a page created by a person about himself or someone close to him. This is obviously not the case here. If you don't know a person, that's fine, but please don't make it personal by calling it vanity! Likewise, do not automatically call an article about a work of art "promo for a personal project", because works of art are personal by definition! IJzeren Jan 07:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC).
      • Have you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? to quote (emphasis mine):
        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. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. But of course you don't have to get all of your information on entries from peer-reviewed journals. See Wikipedia:No original research.
      • Have you read Wikipedia:No original research? to quote (emphasis mine):
        However all of the above may be acceptable content once they have become a permanent feature of the public landscape. A few examples of this include:
        • The ideas have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal; or
        • The ideas have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).
      • I'm not saying this is not a valid concept language... I'm simply saying Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!  ALKIVAR™ 00:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I know the content of both pages ("What the W. is not" and "No original research"). I completely fail to see the connection to Toki Pona. As far as I am concerned, this whole thing has nothing to do with research. All I can tell you is that Toki Pona is among the more significant constructed languages, and for that simple reason it deserves a place here. Otherwise you might as well throw away the articles about any constructed language other than Esperanto or Quenya, and I don't think anyone is waiting for that. IJzeren Jan 06:11, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep Although it's not as well known as some conlangs, it's still interesting. Ckape 07:53, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alphax (talk) 13:46, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a conlang I've actually heard of and read about. Although there's probably a very small pool of speakers, it's a worthwhile entry and an elegant (and amusing) concept. --TenOfAllTrades 15:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Minor conlang, not notable. delete. --fvw* 16:41, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)
  • Delete. Also, weren't the other language articles about Toki Pona created by these few people who use it? It's not like someone uninvolved came along, thought it was notable, and wrote about it (as far as I understand). Adam Bishop 22:01, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean like this? That's where I originally learned about Toki Pona. Ckape 05:30, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hégésippe Cormier 22:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No notability outside the heavily infiltrated Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 02:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Consign to bit-bucket. Vanity, non-notable. Mackensen (talk) 03:20, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Doesn't seem to be vanity, seems to be well-written article. By the way, there is no longer an Toki Pona Wikipedia, but Wikicities is hosting the Toki Pona encyclopedia (former wikipedia) now. Pakaran 13:07, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is not a criterion for deletion, nor is being a created language. Encyclopaedic is defined in our policy as "what you would expect to find under this title". This clearly has the potential to become this. Keep this. BTW, those 12 people have been busy: they've made 26000 webpages!Dr Zen 01:18, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The google hits, even after filtering out wikipedia-mirrored content, are very impressive for a constructed language. The (appearent) fact that the language is only spoken by 12 or so people is insignificant to the number of people who have now heard of this language. 7,000+ websites, for a conlang, is meaningful. func(talk) 19:54, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is actually a somewhat notable conlang. We even have (had?) a Wikpedia in Toki Pona. cprompt 23:28, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As mentioned above by IJzeren Jan, if you delete this, you may as well delete Esperanto and its ilk. And why stop there? Let's also delete Latin, no-one speaks that any more(!) The fact that it's not widely spoken does not make it a bad article. The fact that it's constructed does not. OK, the article may have been created by Sonja, but plenty of other people have contributed to it, so it's hardly pure vanity. I see no good arguments for deleting this page. --Darac Marjal 23:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is a significant conlang which I often run into on the web (not simply at wikipedia). It is well known among conlang fans. It has a small but real group of people who create original literature, translations, comics, and tutorial sites. It's a linguistically interesting language. Goulo 23:38, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Toki Pona is indeed new, but how old must something be before it becomes notable? There is a growing community of Toki Pona enthusiasts. --Ghewgill 23:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep There are definitely more than 12 speakers. For instance, the mailinglist at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tokipona/members lists 155 members. Members translate pieces of literature into Toki Pona and there are many discussions about the evolution of the language. --Leto 00:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Languages are notable. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:51, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, I don't think this is not meant to be a widely spoken language. It seems more like art. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:57, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep. There are 'much' more users then twelve and WikiPedia in TokiPona is a very good place to learn the language and increase that number. --Earwin Burrfoot
    • Keep. As Toki Pona is currently in what could be considered an initial period of growth, and as the language already has a large number of followers (who stem from several different base languages), it definitely merits inclusion in Wikipedia.
    • Keep. Toki Pona is the most perfect conlang around. It has the best insa/nimi (meaning/words) value. It's getting more and more popular (slowly, but anyway). It's surely a product of Great Linguist's mind. It is not vanity NO way. Toki Pona is a genious language. Its Wikipedia was one of the best resources for me, beause it was not about toki pona, but it was about whatever usign toki pona. So it was a way to explore things and toki pona simultaneously. Those idiots writing "vanity" just have no idea what they are talking about. Keep it, it IS worth. Thank you.
    • Keep. WikiPedia on TokiPona is really one of the best places to learn the language and one of the most amasing things on the whole WikiPedia.
      • Sorry, I've crossed through the "keeps" of the anon voters above, please see our Wikipedia:Votes for deletion policy. func(talk) 14:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • That was the right thing to do. Besides, this discussion should not deteriorate to auxlang advocacy. IJzeren Jan 23:18, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Keep. It may not have many fluent speakers, but it's a moderately notable language/project/conlang/concept, mostly due to the extreme simplicity in the core vocabulary. -- pne 11:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Alfio 16:02, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The language is well-constructed, there are 26,300 Google results, and we have a Wikipedia in that language, which is probably the most obvious consideration to make here. Beginning 23:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
Obviously you did not read the comments above before adding to it, founder Jimbo Wales deleted the Toki Pona wiki and moved it over to Wikicities, If you exclude Wikipedia from that google search you get a mere 7000 not 26,300. Seems rather interesting that 2/3rds of the links for it (according to google) are from Wiki. Regardless of which it is still User:Sonjaa's personal pet project language.  ALKIVAR™ 23:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There's no need to be snarky or unwelcoming, even if it is something you feel passionate about. I did read the comments, but I felt that the number of Google results was notable even if the majority are from Wikipedia, and since I had just finished viewing an article in Toki Pona, I thought perhaps the above statement was an inaccuracy. Please don't assume someone's ignorant simply because they disagree with you. I still vote keep here. Beginning 23:54, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A very well-known conlang. That there are only about a dozen speakers is hard to believe. Long before I came to the Wikipedia, I myself had not only come across it but memorized the entire list of words and grammar. I'm sure I'm not alone. — Ливай | ☺ 23:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable, is an interesting project and has a well-written article. I wouldn't want to see an explosion of articles by everyone out there who thinks they can create their own language, but I doubt most would come close to this one as a concept. Mattley 09:02, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, its notability is only on wikipedia and mirrored sites. Megan1967 00:47, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It seems to be a common misconception that Toki Pona is only known because of its presence on wikipedia, but that is simply false. I and others learned of it well before noticing it on wikipedia. Extensive websites about it exist, created by people in various countries (I've seen English, German, Russian and Esperanto webpages about Toki Pona). Translations and original works and comics exist. It is simply wrong to assert that it's known only because of wikipedia. Goulo 08:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That is absolutely true. Thing is, each wiki entry is mirrored and mirrored ad infinitum. Same with DMOZ entries. That's something inherent to the Wikipedias, and you definitely cannot blame Sonja for that, especially if you take into consideration that she can't even be held responsible for the page! Besides, you are right: even if you omit all the wiki pages and their mirrors, there remain a substantial amount of other web pages. [On a personal note: I am also the author of a language with a wiki entry; let me tell you that it is really annoying to have to dig your way through all those wiki mirrors if you want to check if something new has been written about it]. IJzeren Jan 15:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC).
Hm? I'm not sure if IJzeren is replying to me or to Megan1967. The indentation suggests me, but I wasn't talking at all about the issue of wiki mirroring or whether Sonja wrote about Toki Pona in wikipedia or its mirrors, and I'm not sure what that has to do with the question whether Toki Pona should be deleted from wikipedia. In case it was unclear, I'm saying that Toki Pona has presence and significance independent of wikipedia and its mirrors, and that indeed many people learn of it via sources other than wikipedia and its mirrors. Given that variety of Toki Pona activity that is utterly unrelated to wiki, it is therefore false to assert that Toki Pona is only notable because of wikipedia. Goulo 17:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No worries Goulo, it was indeed thee I had in mind. My point was this: even if 80 % of the Google hits are wiki and mirrors (which essentially happens because wiki pages have a strange way of multiplying themselves and is not Sonja's fault) that still leaves lots of remaining pages. In other words: I fully agree with thee! IJzeren Jan 18:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC).


  • Keep. First of all, a vote for deletion was held on this article fairly recently, and it failed. Second, if Toki Pona gets deleted, then it would be fair to delete Klingon, leet, pig latin, and any other similar language. --Julie-Anne Driver 22:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a typically encyclopedic article, with a topic which has risen remarkably quickly to fame outside the Wikipedia community, and now (it would seem) here, too. It is one the Wikipedia can be proud of — personally, I would not think twice about voting for it as the Wikipedia's Featured Article. --Verdlanco (talk) 19:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have articles on minor races of beings in videogames. Why not Toki Pona? I heard of Toki Pona before I heard of Wikipedia.
  • Keep. If not notable as a 'language', TP is at least notable is an 'internet fenomenon' (as noted above, l33t-speak has a page), the page has already been made conciderably shorter and less informative than before. If to be deleted, it should then get a page noting "TokiPona - a minimalistic constructed language, created in 2001, created alot of fuss and 'flame wars' in WP mailing lists circa 2004. The language was concidered unnotable by the WP concensus and thereby shan't be described". Now, wouldn't that be just grand? (and oh yeah, cross over my keep for anonymusIPishness.
  • Keep. As has been said, we have similar articles and this article could be useful to some. --Sanguinus 10:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was looking at page about wikipedia statistics, which includes about the Toki Pona wiki. So even if this wiki has moved to wikicities, I was still interested in finding out what Toki Pona is, who invented it, etc, etc. So, even if it is from a purly historical point of view, there is still some need to keep this page up.
  • Keep. Is there any reason to delete it? --141.54.172.156 14:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep What harm is it doing anyone? And for the millionth time non-notability is not a reason for deleation. Notability is a subjective concept, and to me this is one of the most notable, intersting and exciting articles that i have encountered on wikipedia. The bellman 02:14, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Toki_Pona&oldid=1138876516"