Talk:Vendergood

Nothing to see here

A good article about a great man. only thing i have a problem with is the way you state that its written by a 7 year old as if to say that he could not have been very intelligent and is not to be taken seriously when he was probably smarter than anyone else whos ever existed at that age.

Yes, but still more people speak Esperanto than Vendergood. Also "Bear in mind,

however, its inventor was a forty-year-old man." sounds like Wikipedia is defending Vendergood and might as well be paraphrased as "It's not a perfect language, but he was so young when he wrote it doesn't

Notability problem here?[edit]

How would editors establish the notability of this topic for a separate Wikipedia article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I cannot tell. I know nothing about this particular language. But, the very fact that it was created by this particular author makes it (sort of) notable in my opinion. However, I have no idea where the text samples come from. If they have been quoted straight from the biography (which I haven't seen), then I'd say that should be enough to warrant inclusion.

I am also curious about the sentence that Vendergood has been used for encryption. Is that written in the same biography? And if so, by whom was it used? All in all, questions the article should answer. It would be worth it if somebody could check these things. But as long as that hasn't been done, I don't see that as a reason for deletion per se. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, you wrote, "However, I have no idea where the text samples come from." Yes. There is definitely a problem with the core Wikipedia policy of verifiability here. And that may be the best ground for deletion of the article, quite apart from the complete lack of notability for the Vendergood language. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here I disagree with you. The article makes certain statements ánd a reference has been given. That means that it is verifiable. After all, "verifiable" is not the same thing as "verified", and there is no policy that says sources must be online somewhere. The trouble is only that I have no idea in how far Vendergood has been mentioned in the book in question. If it doesn't go any further than saying: "When he was seven or eight, Sidis created a language he called Vendergood", then I'd be very curious where the rest of the information comes from - and if the source is unknown and/or cannot be verified, then I'm all for deletion. However, if the entire content of the article is based on the biography, then I can't see a reason to invoke the verifiability criterium. Notability is an entirely different can of worms; it is very subjective, and besides, unlike verifiability is it no hard policy at all. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 01:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that the biography is the sole source. Does anyone have the biography at hand? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Vendergood[edit]

did this "manuscript", the Book of Vendergood supposedly written by an 8 yo (his second!), ever get published? Because if an 8 yo doesn't publish his scrivenings, they are not generally called "books". A citation is needed, one that indicates more than a relative's recollection 68.175.11.48 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]