Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olb

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 delete

Olb

Comment although it seems weird, it makes some sense

Keep Words constitute our main tool for verbal communication and exclusive tool for literary communication. Yet words constrain us conceptually. To bring a new word into a language is a long and haphazard process. To provide a nuance in both speech and writing can get involved.

Olb provides a cure for this by building a simple and powerful mechanism to harness any word or phrase and imbue it with an immediately understood nuance. As explained in the entry, turning a 'Job' into a 'Jib' provides a significant short cut in everyday speech for casting aspersions on the solidity of the job. A 'Jub' would mean that someone fears holding his job, or the job's future existence is in doubt. A 'Jeb' would indicate that he is doing strange work. We can all emphasize with these emotions regarding our work, I am sure. Further good examples include someone who wishes to refer to a friend -yet he is in doubt to his friend's loyalty. Therefore, in Olb talk, he can refer to a Fruend - inserting doubt.

There are still unresolved problems, something that Wikipedia may help tackle. There is no consistency, even among founding speakers, over what exact vowel should change. What happens when there are 3 vowels in a word? Any comments and suggestions would be valuable and would certainly provide justification for the entry. --192.114.168.74 09:13, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be nonsense, but I thought it should be listed here rather than speedied. Delete.-gadfium 02:49, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete as a vanity "aspectual form of expression"... gibberish or prank, whatever, it has to go. Wyss 04:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this melking gleb. DCEdwards1966 04:36, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Found this quite intriguing, reminds me of Yiddish. Seems fairl well developed. Don't see a reason to delete.

sniff... sniff... do I smell dirty socks? Wyss 06:07, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment I have read the Vote-for-deletion page and don't see that this article (which I started) qualifies. It is certainly not nonsense or gibberish (the internal consistency and detail should make that clear). Olb is also not a prank (it would be a rather unfunny one) and neither is it vanity (I fail to see how any person or group benefits - that is, apart from present or potential speakers of Olb). To address a comment above, Olb provides an overlay to everyday language (any language, not just English) and as such is accurately termed an aspectual form of expression (c.f. Aspect-oriented programming). It should be fairly obvious that Olb cannot be considered a language on its own. The vocabulary provides a number of important concepts for which there are no other sufficiently rich or specific words, at least not in English. 132.68.1.29 07:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, nonsense despite internal consistency. --fvw * 07:29, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Sadly, the world is replete with internally consistant, vain cranks... Wyss 07:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since I think we're getting away from Wikipedia:Civility I'll simply add that my vote is clearly Keep.

The above from anon User:132.68.1.29. This article is nonsense. Delete. Rick K 08:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- Hoary 08:53, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Delete. Original research, hoax, take your pick. This darticle is hilk, whether a buchara or a genuine pirter made it. Delete, phonebox creition. Ohhhkay? JRM 09:26, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Keep. Lets have more melking and less glebbing about this. Deleting it would be a masdemeanar. [Addendum: Ohkaaay. I am loggin in.] Buttersmc 10:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Above "vote" left unsigned; signature added by me. I'm glad you're enjoying yourself, but please sign all comments with four tildes ~~~~. JRM 10:01, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Comment. A single external reference would provide a way to asses that article. Without, it definitely look very suspicious. ( Ooops: a very long, very self consistent, very detailed article is not necessarily a valid article. Gtabary 12:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete --or accept a flood of similar nonsense. This is a New England undergraduate ludibrium. Made-up languages that have not been published are no better than the "original research" that causes stirs at Wikipedia. --Wetman 14:22, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Delete or possibly Cleanup. Either this is an elaborate hoax and should be nuked, or it's just so badly written that it appears to be a hoax, in which case it needs to be fixed up and get some citations. RoySmith 15:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep, Its an interesting take on languages and language creation. It would benefit from references and a little bit of cleanup, but it merits an article imho. Thryduulf 17:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- comment: I've had a quick google for it, but haven't found anything relevant. I'm not saying this is at all definitive, because there plenty of uses of the OLB acronym (e.g. On-line Bible) and .olb file is some sort of language file that is important with visual basic programming. Thryduulf 21:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete (and perhaps inlcude on WP:BJAODN) unless someone can provide at least one credible reference for this. older≠wiser 18:30, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
Keep As one of many speakers and developers of this language, I'm happy to see wiki do an article on it. Perhaps we can let it develop a bit further. 20:35, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete for non-notability. Tuf-Kat 22:31, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
delete, since I though the point of language was to express these ideas a little simpler. Really, why does this exist? hfool/Roast me 00:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete I take this as an VERY elaborate hoax; there are to many allegations to other languages (e.g. german, yiddish) which make indeed some very weird constructs (sometimes reversing or perverting the original meaning. I admire the dedication which must have gone into this Lectonar 09:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Keep This is no hoax. I am also a regular speaker of olb and heard about this page. I think it should by all means be kept. 212.143.166.9 11:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Obvious hoax. Try reading some of the example phrases out loud. Uncle G 16:37, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)
Comment One curious effect of this meta-language that the article does not mention is that all of it's speakers seem to use the same writing style, and make the same syntax and punctuation mistakes. At least all of them who have visited this page. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 22:11, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Delete If it's a conlang, it is not right developed (I'm a conlanger, "constructor of languages") and it's not worth an article and should be deleted. If it's nonsense, also should be deleted. --Neigel von Teighen 22:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's a neat concept, maybe could be used in a work of science fiction, but it looks like 1) original research, and 2) non-notable. My vote therefore has to be Delete. Inky 04:58, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comment As the originator of this article, I am somewhat taken aback by the hostility put forward by some members. Nonetheless I would like to respond to some of the more sensible points raised. Google references: Since Olb is a verbally transmitted form of expression I would not necessarily expect there to be much mention of it on the Web. A more fruitful way to verify if Olb exists would be to ask around the people you know - I've met a few speakers in my travels in America and Europe over the past few years. Made-up language / conlang / original research: Ignoring the rather unlikely theory of linguistic creationism, all languages are 'made up' by a group of people in response to the conditions in which they live. The objection would be better put that Olb was an artificial form of expression, meaning that it was planned in a top-down fashion rather than arising and developing naturally over time amongst its speakers. This objection is not true, and should be fairly obvious from some of the idiosyncracies that Olb contains. Notability: There are at least 3 reasons why Olb is notable, (a) it is a growing cultural phenomenon, (b) it is unique as an aspectual form of expression not tied to a specific language, (c) it provides easy access to a number of conceptual overtones which are not readily available in Western languages. Difficult to understand or pronounce: This is a very poor reason and seems rather closed-minded. I challenge any Westerner to find the Xhosa language easy to understand or pronounce. Over time I'm sure more guidance on pronunciation will be added the article. 132.68.1.29 15:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete CryptoDerk 19:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete KingTT 19:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this vaguely amusing but not in the least bit notable load of codswallop. --Kelly Martin 19:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Delete — BesigedB ^(talk) 19:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete this elaborate and unfunny hoax. Edeans 10:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keep Although I suggest that 132.68.1.29 finds or puts up information about Olb elsewhere on the web, as the fact that it is unique to this article in Wikipedia may be the source of hostility and hoax cries. I would also suggest that rather than just making edits from different IPs, he should get a few login names for Wikipedia, to make his multiple indentity KEEP entries look a bit more convincing.PRB 10:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:04, 17 Jan 2005 (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 the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.