Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basic Roman spelling of English


 * 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 both. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Basic Roman spelling of English

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am also nominating:

The articles are nominated for deletion because of a lack of notability. The only sources referring to these spelling systems were written by their inventor, who is also the creator of these articles. Thus, they fail the general notability guideline criterion of significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. tags were removed. See also Articles for deletion/Re-Romanization of English on an article by the same author on the same or similar subject matter. --Lambiam 16:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 16:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be an attempt to adapt a proposal for reform of Bulgarian spelling to English. No apparent coverage anywhere outside of blogs and 1 paper in GScholar, apparently by system's inventor. EEng (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Does not seem to have been covered in any secondary source at all. We don't keep articles on things that only the inventor is interested in. Hans Adler 19:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep  – The systems ‘Basic Roman spelling of English’ and ‘Roman Phonetic Alphabet for English’ are published in two papers in the peer reviewed journal Contrastive Linguistics, certainly an independent source. And, by the way, the second of those papers (second sentence in its Abstract) makes clear that one of the co-authors of that paper, namely Valerie Yule, is not among the inventors of the systems in question. Apcbg (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Two papers, one of which isn't by the system's inventor, is way, way below the necessary threshold. Please read the notability guidelines before participating. EEng (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note. Apcbg is the creator of the articles. --Lambiam 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another attempt at English spelling reform; no indication that this system has any historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: So far, the opinions in support of deletion have advanced no sound arguments based on fact rather than opinion and in compliance with WP:DP and WP:GNG. Apcbg (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's completely false, as you will see when the closing admin evaluates the outcome of this discussion based on the strength of arguments. The source which according to the two articles was authored by "Valerie Yule" is just a web page on the site of a non-notable Australian society which happens to contain a broken reference "(Yule 1991)". It's not at all clear who the author of that document is. (It also looks like a copyright violation, in which case we would not be allowed to link to it. Moreover, I note that the article Interspel has the same problem and may need some attention as well.) Since it's apparently not formally published it's not a reliable source and so can't contribute to notability. And I can't even see how it refers to the specific topic of either article! (Possibly the other way round.)
 * You have not given us any reason to believe that this topic has ever received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). Given that English spelling reform is a typical playground for cranks, the a priori assumption is obviously that it is not notable enough for its own article and probably not even notable enough to be mentioned in an article on unadopted English spelling reform proposals, of which there have been hundreds over the centuries. Hans Adler 16:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the strength of arguments excluding fallacious arguments, and you are commenting on the wrong source. Apcbg (talk) 17:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that Yule is actually a co-author of Ivanov. Therefore Yule is not independent. My point stands: No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If there is such coverage, I am sure you know about it. Just give us the links and you win automatically. Hans Adler 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, and pointed that out at the very beginning of this discussion: Peer reviewed editions such as the Contrastive Linguistics journal are independent sources. Apcbg (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * It is my understanding that you are referring to two papers authored or co-authored by Ivanov. It is also my understanding that Ivanov is the inventor or main promoter of this proposed spelling reform. Therefore these sources are not independent. Please note that to pass WP:GNG we need coverage that satisfies all criteria simultaneously: significant, in reliable sources, and independent. Publications in academic journals generally count as reliable, but they are not independent from their authors merely because the journal is. Hans Adler 10:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (Replying to Hans Adler’s comment above posted after the article’s relisting.) You are messing ‘independent source’ (the author does not influence the decision whether his/her work is published or not) with ‘secondary source’ (publication on someone else’s work). Apcbg (talk) 20:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Adler's correct. An article on the system by the system's inventor doesn't count for notability no matter where it appears, including refereed journals.  Citations by others to that paper do count, but obviously there's no abundance of those.  EEng (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not the place for one’s say-so but for invoking relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Apcbg (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not "one's say-so". It is the way that GNG has been uniformly applied throughout the entire project for years. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, policies and guidelines are descriptive of general consensus, not prescriptive, and they are interpreted sensibly, not literally. In this case the general consensus how to interpret GNG is long-standing and firm, and I have never met anyone before who claimed otherwise. Hans Adler 08:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no general consensus to replace ‘independent’ by ‘secondary’. Apcbg (talk) 08:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to believe that's what we've done here, then believe it. See WP:STICK and WP:HEAR.  I'm removing this page from my watchlist as others have you well in hand.  EEng (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, sources are exclusively by the apparent creator, no secondary sources, no indication that it has made any impact in any corner of the (physical or metaphoric) world —Felix the Cassowary 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: Secondary sources and ‘impact in any corner of the world’ is not what WP:DP and WP:GNG stipulate in terms of requirements. Apcbg (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true. We're using sarcasm to ridicule your continued wasting of editors' time in defense of your stupid vanity article. EEng (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Apcbg, ‘ "Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability’. Need I say more? But regarding my "impact on a corner of the world", it is straightforward to interpret that in terms of the GNG, as was intended when I wrote it: because it has failed to make any significant impact, there is insignificant coverage by valid sources. A general principle of assuming good faith is to read people's comments in the intended context, rather than to "comment" on their points to try and find some legalistic way to make the closing administrator disregard them. —Felix the Cassowary 10:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Felix, you appear to be correct; I haven’t noticed that WP:GNG definition of ‘source’. And although the articles are written in good faith, contain no original analysis or interpretation of the primary-source material, no analytic or evaluative claims, and are based on reliable, published and independent sources, the latter are still primary sources as WP:OR explicitly says that “a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors.”  Therefore, I am withrawing my objections to the proposed deletion. You see, no need for ‘impact on a corner of the world’ :-) Apcbg (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow! I see now that you are probably a fellow mathematician, and you certainly behave like one. I apologise for any hard words I used. Getting an article deleted is annoying. I just hope that we can keep you here anyway. Hans Adler 12:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * He is, indeed, a professional mathematical logician, and in general a prolific and much appreciated contributor. --Lambiam 17:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Apcbg. I didn't mean the articles weren't written in good faith, and I didn't mean they contained any particular claims that would be invalid on Wikipedia (if that was the case, I'd've voted "keep but rewrite"—or done it myself). It's the fact that there's no secondary sources and (because of lack of impact) there aren't any. So in my line of reasoning, yes, impact in a corner of the world is necessary. If it's not for you—that's fine too. BTW, you might want to strike-through your "Keep" above for convenience of the closing admin. (Incidentally, I don't think I've ever seen consensus achieved like this before. I'm impressed. You get free points.) —Felix the Cassowary 13:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is a big issue with spelling conventions. icetea8 (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2011 (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.