Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critique on South African Sesotho

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Critique on South African Sesotho.

The result of the debate was to delete the page.

Article text: Critique on South African Sesotho

- This is an incoherent rant Tiles 08:58, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * agreed, delete. ping 09:03, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * for the sake of all that is good and holy, HOW CAN YOU COMMENT ON A SESOTHO PAGE IF YOU'RE NOT A MOSOTHO!!! :-% "...an incoherent rant...", this Tiles dude has been making my Wikipedia life a living hell!! Why would anyone want to contribute to this place if this is the way that you treat articles that you have no interest in??? I'm not a Sesotho student, I am instead a FIRST LANGUAGE SPEAKER who's been formaly and rigourously studying the language, and I just want to share my knowledge with the rest of the Wikipedia community, and free them from the measly "content" of THIS excuse for an encyclopediaic entry. Could you people give me a break!! URGH!!!! See how you like Sesotho language ;-(((. Tebello Thejane, 13:32 23 Oct 2003 (CAT)
 * I'm sorry for the poor welcome you've received. Please consider signing up as a user so people will be more likely to treat you well. Just keep working on the articles while they are listed here and by the end of the week they should make everyone happy. If not, someone will copy them to your user page so you can continue working on them. As people see the good work, more will give keep comments than delete and the pages will be fine if you listen to the advice others give you about what is wanted in articles here. Thanks for working in an area where we need more coverage. JamesDay 14:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Of course anyone can comment on the article, because the article needs to be written for the general reader rather than only for students of the subject in question. The problems with this article as I see them are that it is a very specific critique of a single document, that it is written in the first person, and that it talks about "my criticisms", when an encyclopedia is a place for the accepted knowledge in the subject, not for wholly original work (see Wikipedia is not). Can it be expanded and generalised into an article about variations in Sesotho orthography? And perhaps moved to a title which reflects that? Keep for the time being, since this is a worthwhile subject with an enthusiastic contributor, but treat as a work in progress because the article as it stands doesn't follow general Wikipedia procedure. Onebyone 12:02, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Variations in Sesotho orthorgraphy, hmm...., maybe a good idea. But where would the link to the page be from? On Sesotho? Yeah right! Angela and Tiles have made it their lifes' work to keep that page as a little bit more than just a stub! On Sesotho language, perhaps? But how can you have a link from a page that's been condemned?!?!?! Of course they don't care for my "opinions" - they don't care about Sesotho! Although the critique cites parts of one article, the problems in it are widespread amongst all kinds of Sesotho textual media, everything from prayer books, to internet sites use inconsistent writing. Why would I possibly dedicate an entire page to an election pamphlet I picked up in the train station?!?! THE PAGE IS NOT FINISHED! I might finish it quicker if everyone was not blindly fighting against it!! Inconsistent orthorgraphy is not the same as bad spelling. You wouldn't mind much if I saddinlee stotid riting lik this, but you would be a bit more troubled if I wrote every v as an "fh" (in English) (<- think about this, incosistent orthography means that people would have difficulty understanding everything you write, and in the case of Sesotho and languages that use clicks, may mis-intrepret your point by getting the wrong meanings of your intended words). I personaly strongly believe that Tiles has a problem. not with my content, but with my mission, and if I stop coming to the Wikipedia site it would not be because I have given up - it would be because I have died from a heart attack cuased from fighting for my right to be heard so furiously...
 * My only edit to any Sesotho related page was to add bold and links and to change the % symbol to the word percent on the Sesotho language page. Angela
 * I honestly don't think that User:Angela and User:Tiles have a personal grudge against you. It's just that someone has to make sure that bad material is deleted from the Wikipedia, and work in progress (especially from a newcomer who hasn't yet learnt the "house style", and especially on unfamiliar subjects) can look a bit like bad material because it doesn't have the "finish" that would normally be present even on a short article. It's also a question of how to get from A to B - hopefully you'll stay on Wikipedia and get a better idea of what an incomplete article is expected to look like. The thing to remember really is that at each step of the way, it should ideally look like a short but broad-based article rather than looking like a detailed coverage of a small part of the subject. And yes, the link to Sesotho orthography (or whatever it's to be called) should be on the Sesotho page - if you add it and someone removes it without reason, then other Wikipedia users will start to frown on their behaviour. Please consider following User:JamesDay's advice and creating an account - that way you can work on your ideas in your own namespace if you want, and you'll have a Talk page of your own where people can advise you in person. Anonymous articles are more likely than average to be proposed for deletion without constructive criticism - that isn't always fair, it's just the way things work out due to fears about vandalism. Also, if you want any further advice about editing your articles into a style that fits in a little better (avoiding "me" and "I", for example), then please drop me a note on my talk page and we can carry on that discussion there. I'll also look up the "official" pages on this kind of thing if nobody else points you at those pages first. Onebyone 14:48, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * I agree this page needs to be deleted, but I also believe that User:Tiles has acted too hastily in reverting the contributions from 146.141.15.225. I spent a good 30 minutes just now, cleaning up the Sesotho language page and merging it with Sesotho. Tebello Thejane, please stop creating new articles to "get around" people who disagree with you. It's almost always possible to resolve these disagreements without such tactics. Daniel Quinlan 12:40, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
 * Without getting involved in the argument, delete. DJ Clayworth 13:56, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Keep and relist in a week if it still needs it. Time from initial creation to biting the newbie: less than an hour. Lets try encouraging rather than discouraging newbies. Please? JamesDay 14:03, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title itself causes the article to deserve deletion -- we don't do critiques on an encyclopedia.  And the use of the first person is wrong.  RickK 15:44, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Delete. In case you haven't read it it begins "To jump straight to the point, here are extracts from a Sesotho version of a pamphlet promoting awareness of the 2004 SA general elections, and my criticisms." -- BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:45, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
 * Okay, delete it, I will be spending my time on Sesotho instead. user:ZyXoas aka Tebello Thejane. 15:17 29 October 2003 (CAT).

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.