Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Esperanto


 * 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 merge to Esperanto. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of Esperanto

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It doesn't make sense to split the Esperanto article into an 'Esperanto' and an 'Esperanto is bad' article. "The two main reasons for splitting material out from an article are size and content relevance. If either the whole article, or the specific material within one section becomes too large, or if the material is seen to be inappropriate for the article due to being out of scope, then a split may be considered or proposed. Consideration must be given to size, notability, and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split." I don't see it given in this situation; the size and notability aren't relevant.

To create a whole article about 'criticism' is in fact against the neutrality issues. Wikipedia policy is against 'criticism' as sections (I bet articles too?); those have to be included in the article, instead of being separated, else the article will lack neutrality: "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

As far as I can see, the sources aren't scholarly. "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." Momo Monitor (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Probably it's a good idea to delete this article and, if some people think this would be useful, to include some content in Esperanto.
 * The title of the article is "Criticism of Esperanto"; this is not very specific, as the word "Esperanto" is used a) for the language and b) sometimes for the project to introduce that language as an international language. In fact the first version of the article has the subtitle "Arguments against Esperanto as international language" (to be generally introduced) - it is not "Arguments against Esperanto as a language" (of an international community of speakers who freely decided to use the language). The current title may be misunderstood as being a criticism of Esperanto as a mere language - this is not the goal of the wikipedia. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - or delete - and redirect. If properly cited, any criticisms can be included if not already in place within Esperanto.  I cast my !vote as such because I have not examined the two articles to see if it is worth committing to a merge.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Addendum - should mention that I find it to have sources, but it rings strongly of WP:SYNTH to me. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I anything, Wikipedia needs more articles descriing the viability of specific languages, not less. Anyone who has done even a cursory look at journals or news related to languages realizes this is a much-discussed topic; hence encyclopedic especially for a language that is purpose-built for viability. For example, even when not looking for it, I come accross articles discussing which languages are suitable for communicating education, which ones transmit concepts efficiently, which is a barrier due to lack of standardization, etc. Hawaan12 (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can we get your reasoning beyond the point of WP:EVERYTHING? -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 14:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - or delete - and redirect, per . Pikolas (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, I didn't !vote, I just delsorted the page. Perhaps you meant to ping someone else? Everymorning (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, sorry! I meant to ping User:Dennisthe2. Pikolas (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, so merge and redirect per me? =D -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 14:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge, the criticism belongs with the article on the language. VanEman (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kunfandi en unu artikolo. Kialo por du. Dkendr (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - where I don't understand Esperanto, Google Translate does! =D Translated therefrom: "Merge into one article. Reason for two."  , please use English on the English Wikipedia, 'k? =) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment There are already over a hundred articles, most of them quite substantial, that cover criticism of various topics. Article size is an issue and although there are no hard and fast rules, Esperanto at around 100 KB is quite big. Not that splitting of the criticism section could make a big difference. Uanfala (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The nominator does cover that - as well as neutrality and notability. Size alone is not the basis for splitting an article, and even within the Esperanto article there are concerns about the neutrality of the criticism.  I'm all for fixing the article (and I've seen a few articles where needed repairs were triggered by an AfD), however - but you are better off spending time fixing the article than arguing these points in favor of the article as it currently exists.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator covers that but I wouldn't agree with the assertion that Criticism of X articles violate WP:NPOV. Criticism of a subject can be in itself a perfectly valid subject which it is possible to write about from a perfectly neutral point of view. Uanfala (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kunfandi and redirect. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Keep. We have many, many articles about Esperanto, not just two. There are concerns about the neutrality of much of the Esperanto article; there's a lot of political warring about the issue and how Esperanto should be presented. But somewhere in Wikipedia the great discussion about the idea of Esperanto that's taken place over the last 120 years deserves an article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Esperanto as this would imaginably be best connected to that. SwisterTwister   talk  02:29, 11 April 2016 (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.