Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Interlingua, and Lingua Franca Nova


 * 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 Arguments for delete appear to be more policy based than arguments for keep. Arguments such as "can't we make an exception" are not a good basis for making encycolpedic entries that may have serious synthesis issues. Wikipedia is not a place for original research as has been spelled out here. Polargeo (talk) 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of Esperanto, Ido, Novial, Interlingua, and Lingua Franca Nova

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Blatant WP:OR; not a single source given; reads like WP:ESSAY. Probably not an encyclopedic topic anyway. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 20:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Blatant WP:OR" and "reads like WP:Essay" clearly personal opinions without evidence. Notice added minutes after initial posting, prior to completion! BasilDickswell (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment for BasilDickswell. The article has been labelled as 'original research' and 'essay' because it completely omits any references to third-party, reliable sources. They were not personal opinions but pointers to non-compliance with Wiki protocol. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  --  Beloved  Freak  22:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - for the article creator, or anyone else: Can you cite sources that discuss the similarities of these various languages? If so, that would help us satisfy the verifiability requirement and to show that this work does not constitute original research. Lady  of  Shalott  22:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources exist on each pages describing each language. There is not much discussion of differences on this page; it is almost entirely a side by side presentation of information presented in other articles.  I see most of those articles need more sources, but that's not a failing of this article.  If there was discussion of the differences, that would require sources, but I don't see any of that.  Andrew Keenan Richardson 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ambivalent. This is a useful article to be sure but MUST comply with WP:RS to avoid deletion as original research. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the deletion, but if it survives perhaps renaming it would be a good idea. The languages chosen here represent a pretty good spectrum of the types of IALs there are out there, from extreme regularity in Esperanto and Ido to extreme naturalism in Interlingua, Novial is an attempt to bridge the two and was created by the famous linguist Otto Jespersen, while Lingua Franca Nova is an example of a somewhat different approach that focuses on a more creole-like grammar and an approximation of a spoken language (note the lack of h in words such as otel in an imitation of existing Romance languages whereas others will usually bring the h back and pronounce it) instead of starting with a written language and going from there. Incorporating this into another article before deleting it (assuming it does get deleted) might be best. Mithridates (talk) 23:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That last sentence sounds like "merge and redirect". Is that a fair reading of your opinion? Lady  of  Shalott  23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My (nominator) thought: maybe merge anything useful, but no redirect. This is certainly an implausible redirect (r3) &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 23:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this article different from the other comparisons in wikipedia, other than being less biased and more inclusive? How is this "original research" when it consists of nothing more than accurate information easily available from the references listed? BasilDickswell (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Response. The Wiki protocol is clear enough. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources". What you have done is to combine material in such a way as to advance a position that the individual websites you have referenced do not support. Now, if you had quoted an academic study of the languages in question then the article has validity as it is no longer "original research". Eddie.willers (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article uses only material already published by reliable sources. And the article does not advance any position whatsoever, certainly not one that the references do not support. It simply presents the material clearly and succinctly, as a good encyclopedia article does. BasilDickswell (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Seems like WP:OR and synthesis to me, unless reliable sources are provided, this article shall be deleted. Anyway, the selection of specific IAL languages was arbitrary (Where is volapuk?), so I moved it to a new title who includes all IAL languages (though the article's still only about 5 languages) Maashatra11 (talk) 11:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The new title is fine. My intention was to add several other IALs. However, I did not include Volapük because I wanted to present a comparison of several viable IALs, not every IAL ever invented - an impossible task. "Viable" is, of course, a value judgement. Debate on that issue would be welcome! BasilDickswell (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:BasilDickswell has no other edits but this AfD and the page in question. The user has also been blocked due to violation of username policy. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relevance? BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Timneu22 now has charged me with "sockpuppetry" (which I am frankly not familiar with). I was not aware that I needed to use my actual name. I assume that many of you do not. I was forced to change my name by a bot. I guess it responds automatically to "dick" - which leaves an awful lot of Richards in the lurch. BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the aggressive attitude of Mr. Timneu22. If this is the standard operating procedure of the bureaucracy of wikipedia, I have had enough. All I intended to do was to add a useful article on a subject in which I am interested and knowledgeable. BasilDiggswell (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions:
 * There is no agressive attitude, and no bureaucracy.
 * I patrol new pages. This page had no references which means it seems like WP:OR. So I nominated it for deletion, per the WP:AFD policies.
 * "Dick swell" in your previous username was banned as offensive.
 * "Diggs well" seems like an attempt at the previous offensive name.
 * That's all. We'll see how the sockpuppetry case works. In the meantime, if you have constructive references to add to the article, that will help avoid deletion. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I simply used the name of a series of baronets named Basil Dixwell, which was a featured article in wikipedia. I misspelled it, which was perhaps fortunate in that it is someone else's name. I then replaced the cks with ggs to avoid the prurient implication. Apparently some find things in names that others miss.
 * You tagged the article within minutes of my posting it. I therefore had no time to edit, add references, etc. That is what appears aggressive to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilDiggswell (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But let's get back to the issues: I haven't heard a response to my point above. To reiterate:
 * The article uses only material already published by reliable sources. And the article does not advance any position whatsoever, certainly not one that the references do not support. It simply presents the material clearly and succinctly, as a good encyclopedia article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BasilDiggswell (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue: it doesn't matter that I tagged the article minutes after creation, you have had more than a day to add references, yet none exist. External links and "further reading" don't cut it. Inline citations are helpful, if the added external links are relevant to providing WP:RS. The issue here is that there isn't a reference (or, there wasn't) in the article. That's the issue. Who cares when it was tagged? Add the refs, and it's likely that the article will be kept. Period. Also, please sign your posts with ~ . &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 21:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As for "who cares when it was tagged", we do encourage people not to bite the newbies. I think Mr. Diggswell has been well bitten. Tagging for OR and being unreferenced and seeing if there were any response to that before running to AfD might have been reasonable. Lady  of  Shalott  04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a well written and useful article, especially considering its youth.  Although there aren't enough sources here, the topic of this page is clearly notable as evidenced by the contents of "See Also" from this article.  Keeping this article allows wikipedians who abhor OR to constructively add references. Andrew Keenan Richardson 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Question on policy for sourcing comparisons. This information is being taken from grammars such as     .  Is it appropriate to cite specific sections of each of these grammars every time information about a language is introduced?  Adding these sources as "External links" seems better to me because it's cleaner, but seems to run contrary to policy.  I am adding sources to this article. Andrew Keenan Richardson 21:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: if the article is kept this title should certainly be deleted as an implausible redirect. (The article was renamed since the AfD was created.) &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 21:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A rudimentary reading of the article indicates that it may violate Wikipedia's WP:SYNTH policy, but the topic is unfamiliar to me so I'm refraining from officially voting.-- Pink Bull  02:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know to what extent its WP:SYNTH or WP:OR, but to the extent that it is, can't we make an exception? Certainly seems the sort of article that one would expect to find in an an encyclopedia. Adds to the sum of useful knowledge in the encyclopedia, does it not?. Do we really have to get rid of articles like this but keep "Phineas & Ferb's Summer Vacation" or whatever? If so, that is demoralizing to readers like me. It's not like the article has an axe to grind or a point to make. It's just presenting facts. And the facts are referenced. Keep. Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 30 July 2010 (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.