Chakobsa (Dune) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The notability for this stub article about a fictional language relies on its use in two films, and I don't see significant growth potential. The entry at Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology#C is an acceptable redirect destination, and already includes the primary two sentences of content. I'm dubious about the notability of the newly added Phonology information, but even if it and other possible sourced additions are deemed as notable, this minor subtopic is more appropriate in Dune (franchise)#Additional linguistic and historic influences than as its own article. — TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Language. — TAnthony^Talk 01:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Not much in the way of coverage, but perfectly slottable into a larger article where it can be better covered. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. This is a notable conlang used in two notable films (Dune and Dune: Part Two). The fact that the article is a stub does not mean that it should be deleted. See WP:TOOSHORT: Wikipedia has many stubs. These should not be deleted for this reason but should be marked as stubs. Even if the 'article' is really a dictionary entry, if there is published, reliable evidence of even the slightest potential for it to be expanded beyond this, it should be kept. Khiikiat (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also: Keep per WP:HEY. Khiikiat (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you're going for a Dothraki language thing, but in my opinion, this fictional language is just not as notable as that one, at this time, based on the coverage. And I have criticisms of the Dothraki article as well. The criteria for a topic's inclusion in Wikipedia in general is different from the criteria for a topic to be a standalone article. I do appreciate the work you're putting in on the stub, but to be honest it seems like you're straining to make this topic more than it is.— TAnthony^Talk 22:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now. Some mention in NYT but not seeing 'Chakobsa' in NYorker. GS query shows some passing mentions. If anyone thinks this is notable (which is possible but not guaranteed), the burden is on them to show it with sources, not vague claims. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  not seeing 'Chakobsa' in NYorker: The article in The New Yorker does not use the term Chakobsa, but the article is about the creation of the Fremen language, which is Chakobsa. Khiikiat (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per nom. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY now includes plenty of references to meet GNG and development information. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. Pandacthulhu (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Piotrus. The evidence of sources meeting WP:GNG has not been met. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect/Merge per nominator. Giving Peterson's conlang its own article separate from the context of the other linguistic, cultural, and historical sources drawn on by the Dune series (including Herbert's own version of Chakobsa!) is just silly. Apocheir (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]