Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRitic (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. JForget 12:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

BRitic
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails WP:GNG. Completely lacking substantial third party coverage. Previous AfD ended in no consensus, a year to find additional sources is more than enough time. Non notable subject that fails basic notabiluty guidelines. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete as non-notable. The only sources I can find that are not currently cited on the page appear to be based on Wikipedia. (There are currently two sources on the page by the same author, Richard Lung, and one passing mention in a description of 'ESP alfabet'.) Cnilep (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm also unable to find proper reliable sources; I'm happy to recommend Keep if those sources are found. I'm also concerned that, despite the drama of the previous AFD, there was very little work done between now and then. The Diff from 23 July 2008 to Today is telling; no sources were added at all. Does that mean they don't exist? It's unclear, but I can't find them - and can't Keep the article without them. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  21:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep The article has at least one reliable source (archived link) from the Spelling Society. The Google cached version clearly shows that Britic has received significant coverage. At the bottom of this article, which is written by Richard Lung, the references section states: also many leaflets on Britic. A limited number of these are available from myself (and possibly others who corresponded with Dr Deans). One such leaflet is from Sir David Eccles' fine speech to the Commonwealth and American Clubs of Rome, in support of Britic, when he was Minister of Education. After the House of Lords debate on 'The Simplification of the English Language' on 28 January 1981 Reg was pleased with replies from Lord Eccles, Lord Boyle, Lord Simon and Lord Tweeddale, who wrote a long letter "in perfekt Britic". In debate, judging from quotes Reg sent me, the latter two spoke with magnificent forthrightness. Baroness Young made the point that spelling reformers are not in reasonable agreement that can be acted on. Dr Everingham of Brisbane wrote about Britic in The Australian Medical Journal, 17 December 1960; he is known to the world's spelling reformers for making 30 September 'spelling day', when he became Australian Minister of Health. There are undoubtedly more sources about Britic, even though most of them are offline. This topic is notable and should not be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One self published website is not sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. If there is "significant coverage" as you suggest, then please find the sources and add them to the article. The fact is, the article lacks the necessary reliable sources, has been tagged as such for an entire year, and yet no additional sources have been added. In its present state, the article fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Spelling Society is not a self-published source; it is a reliable source. The quote I linked to above proves that there are plenty of offline sources about this topic. This article should not be deleted because those sources prove that it passes WP:N. I cannot add these sources to the article because I do not have access to them. Hopefully, an editor in the future can expand and source this article with the sources in the quote above. Wikipedia has no deadline. Cunard (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * An entire year is more than enough time to acquire these "reliable sources" and add them to the article. The absence of such additions suggests that either they do not establish notability for the subject or they are not reliable sources. The fact is that the article is currently lacking sufficient coverage in reliable third party sources and so fails to meet WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With my quote above, I have proven that sources exist for Britic: "Dr Everingham of Brisbane wrote about Britic in The Australian Medical Journal, 17 December 1960." This, in addition to this reliable source, which is already in the article, proves that Britic passes WP:N. Coverage in multiple reliable sources guarantees that this article should be kept. I do not have access to the Australian Medical Journal, but other editors might. Again, there is no dealine. Maybe the article will be improved in five years or ten years. Once sources are proven to exist, the article should not be deleted. Deleting this article will hinder the ability of future editors to improve this topic. Cunard (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Two articles is hardly "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". One article cannot be accessed and so cannot be evaluated - is the article actually about Britic or is it just a trivial mention? This is important, as if it is the latter, then that is not classed as "coverage in an independent source". As for the Spelling Society, I have trouble accepting that they are either reliable or independent. There may be no deadline for Wikipedia, but in its present state, the article fails WP:GNG. If the only sources that exist are the two you mention, then I struggle to accept that this qualifies as significant coverage. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A third reliable source is proven by this sentence from the quote above: "One such leaflet is from Sir David Eccles' fine speech to the Commonwealth and American Clubs of Rome, in support of Britic, when he was Minister of Education." This quote indicates that that speech provides significant coverage about Britic. I view the Spelling Society as a reliable source because it "publishes leaflets, newsletters, journals, books and bulletins to promote spelling reform of the English language." This is indicative of an editorial board that fact-checks these publications. After re-reading the Spelling Society article, I cannot see how Richard Lung, the author, is a proponent of Britic. He does not have a COI with Britic. The quote: "Dr Everingham of Brisbane wrote about Britic in The Australian Medical Journal, 17 December 1960." proves that Britic has received significant coverage in The Australian Medical Journal. In total, there are at least three reliable sources that cover this topic. Three sources are "significant coverage". Even though we do not have access to all three sources, the source that we can access verifies that there are at least two additional sources about this topic. Deleting this article will be net negative for Wikipedia. If this article is deleted, future editors who have access to the sources I mentioned above cannot improve this article. Cunard (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point of requiring reliable sources is to verify the content of articles. If we understand sources to exist or have existed, yet can't verify their content, I don't think we can call them reliable for purposes of WP:Verifiability or rely upon them as significant coverage for purposes of WP:Notability. Cnilep (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. A source must be able to be evaluated in order to be considered. At present, the source(s) cannot be accessed, and so they cannot be used to verify content in the article and thus cannot be included in the article. For this reason, as I have repeatedly stated, the article fails WP:GNG. Assuming these sources to be reliable and to establish notability of Britic is an assumption that we cannot make. If the subject does turn out to be notable, then the deleted article can be restored in future, as the required sources are made available - however I do not see this happening. Furthermore, an apparent promotional leaflet that you refer to as the third source does not in my mind meet the necessary criteria for reliable sources. Again, we would need access to this in order to evaluate its suitability. The lack of substantial edits to the article in the past year suggests that the topic simply isn't that notable and thus will not necessarily be a big loss to wikipedia as you suggest. Wikipedia aims to include only reliably sourced material. This article is simply not reliably sourced. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No independent third party sources even so much as mention this proposed spelling system. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh  01:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * There does not seem to be a compelling argument to keep this article. Claims that there are sufficient reliable sources are unsupported. Surely it is time to get rid of this article. It is not reliably sourced and has had over a year in which this problem could be addressed. The lack of any significant contribution in this time surely demonstrates the failure of this topic to meet even the most basic notability requirements. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2009 (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.