Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Interlingue and Interlingua


 * 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The result was withdrawn. Author of the article provided evidence of WP:SIGCOV/WP:THREE. (non-admin closure) JBchrch   talk  02:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Comparison between Interlingue and Interlingua

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Though an interesting topic, I do not see that the comparison between Interlingue and Interlingua is covered per se in the sources cited by the article. As such, this article seems to be WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and should be deleted per WP:DELREASON #14. I am open to withdrawing this nomination if additional and relevant sources are provided. JBchrch  talk  17:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  JBchrch   talk  17:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: the article was begun by me after the Good Article review for the page on Interlingue, which the reviewer believed was almost too much information in a single package: "I think Interlingue could really benefit from this treatment. There is already plenty in the article to unpack into separate History of Interlingue and Grammar of Interlingue articles to go with our other auxlang coverage. And I see places that would suggest Comparison of Esperanto and Interlingue and especially Comparison of Interlingua and Interlingue, given how easily they get confused." Out of those, the comparison between it and Interlingua and the History of Interlingue (not started yet) are the easiest for me. I can put some more work into it over the next few days as I pull the relevant parts out of Interlingue to make it more concise. Mithridates (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit: and I will be using more sources directly comparing the two. This one from 1957, for example (second-last page) Mithridates (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. Here's a proposition: can you provide WP:THREE sources comparing Interlingue and Interlingua? I don't need to see how you will integrate them in the article and will AGF if they are offline sources. If you can just give me three refs comparing both languages, I will withdraw the nomination. JBchrch   talk  02:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello again! This is quite a coincidence, as I had just added three sources directly comparing the two and came back to add a comment. All of them are offline (two published in the 1950s, one from the Journal of Universal Language in 2011). They are references #10 (Manifesto de Interlingua, 1959), 17 (The Case of Correlatives: A Comparison between Natural and Planned Languages, 2011), and 18 (Li defectes inacceptabil de Interlingua Gode, 1957). Mithridates (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! That's all I needed. Will now withdraw the nomination. Thanks again. JBchrch   talk  02:54, 28 November 2021 (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.