Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grin Report


 * 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. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Grin Report

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is used as the basis for pushing POV in Languages of the European Union, in my opinion. It is used nowhere else except in Esperanto. The quality of the English in the articles it is used in is not in question; The Grin Report is not notable in itself, but is made to look notable by its inclusion therein. (It is an internal report of and to the EU Commission.) My other edits on Languages of the EU to remove the specific references to Hungarian official status are independent and can be backed up by an independent translator, in any case it is not for me to show that those are RS when removing them, but for editor to show they are when inserting them. Si Trew (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * My original and rather longwinded rationale for deletion of this article and of smalls sections of text from Languages of the European Union is at Talk:Languages_of_the_European_Union. I also made notice at Talk:Esperanto and Template Talk:Pages Needing Translation (off their remit but a lot of multilinguists watch there.) I already declared interest in having a Hungarian wife, User:Monkap, who the record shows edits at EN:WP and HU:WP occasionally. Si Trew (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I oppose the deletion of this article. First of all, in my opinion ('cause personal opinion is basically all you give us, dear Si Trew) you are pushing your English-biased POV. You say, literally, the article is only available elsewhere in Esperanto language Wikipedia... So, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan do obviously not take part in your rather "individual" realm of languages. Secondly (I don't know by heart if EN:WP got that wrong, but you certainly do), the report was not commissioned by the EU, but by France's Haut conseil de l'éducation, then officially published in fall 2005, and then, deliberately, examined by the EU Commission. Thirdly: "The quality of the English in the articles it is used in is not in question" -- What?! Which "articles" do you mean? Furthermore, your phrase itself somewhat lacks inherent sense... And: If -- which is not the case in the article concerned -- there's some bad grammar or typos: you may correct this in Wikipedia, that's how it works here. No need to hastily delete (which, as I already insinuated, you probably wouldn't do with an article with some bad language in it -- but with another topic). Most interesting: Why did you bring it up in the first place then, to have "more"? Last not least, "I already declared interest in having a Hungarian wife" -- ??? (I for one would like to have a harem, but once again, personal opinions/feelings and Wikipedia...very important point, you should get this straight first.) Summing up: Do you have anything substantial? No? Thought so. Schönen Tag noch, 95.90.118.201 (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * By default, the article is not notable. It is for others to show that it is. Attacking another good faith editor is not perhaps the best form, and also removing an AfD under an IP address which the bot added back is also perhaps not the best form. It may not have been the same two IPs who did this of course.


 * Removing the PROD is acceptable, but at the same time removing the PRIMARY and SPAM tags that were added years before I came to this, was perhaps not the best form. That may have been accidental.


 * When I looked up, the article was in Transwiki for French, Esperanto and English. It was notin German or Portuguese. I can only go by what I see. I myself and not happy with the new way of doing transwiki because I added a transwiki from Hungarian Wikipedia over to English (at VAr), not changing the article but because it was missing the transwiki link. I got it wrong, and a kind editor pointed me in the right direction and corrected it for me, (my thanks at [] both knowing what we did was in good faith.


 * When I say "The quality of the English in the article it is used is not in question", I mean that I am not complaining about the quality of the English in the article; it is good English. I can't understand why you can't understand that.


 * I am not going to be drawn into a personal attack on my knowledge of English, but I think I am entitled to have right of reply. Si Trew (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I said quite clearly that the article is in French Wikipedia, and in my opinion it should stand there since it gives the facts very straight, but that is only my opinion: anyway it is not our job here to decide what stands or fall in French WP. I made the fatal mistake of actually checking a reference. It is at best PRIMARY to have one article from a single source about that source. I did of course search when it came to AfD and the only sources for "Grin Report" are EN:WP. The other sources on that search (and I searched booklists and journal lists and so on) are minor references where GRIN isused as a refererence abbreviation. I am sure Professor Grin is a nice chap, but this is not notable. Si Trew (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think also it is fair to declare an interest to say my wife is Hungarian. The point is not to brag that I have a wife but to declare the interest, i.e. to say that I may be biased in some way on the specific section of Languages of the EU that refer to Hungary, about Esperanto. I also gave her Wikipedia ID, User:Monkap, and she doesn't edit much here any more but I edit under my name and she does under hers. That is what I understand by declaring an interest, i.e. coming to the table facile princeps. If that means something else in Esperanto, then I'm sorry for the bad translation. Si Trew (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you do this on purpose or does it just happen by accident? Where to start... "When I say "The quality of the English in the article it is used is not in question", I mean that I am not complaining about the quality of the English in the article; it is good English. I can't understand why you can't understand that." You did complain about the English in the PROD you put up just one week ago yourself. Then you decided to tell us differently when you noticed, probably also in very good faith (which is, to my knowledge, officially a pretty weak standard for Wikipedia, ain't it?), differently when it was made clear that this was absolutely baseless.
 * And, read my quoting you above carefully, you spoke about articleS, that's what made your reasoning the chaos it is.
 * "Removing the PROD is acceptable, but at the same time removing the PRIMARY and SPAM tags that were added years before I came to this, was perhaps not the best form. " This PRIMARY you're talking about wasn't there before you came to this, as you get to this page here when you click the link to that mysterious deletion discussion that allegedly existet before... Oh, by the way: The article is less than a year old.
 * "I said quite clearly that the article is in French Wikipedia [...]" No, you did not, in that PIRMARY/PROD you yourself put up, there was talk of the report's language (French); and over here you said: "It is used nowhere else except in Esperanto."
 * In your PROD you complain about the qualitiy of the translation from French into English; however, the original author's translation was correct, other than you say. Furthermore, (it's not but if it was a wrong translation) why can't you just assume good faith with the author and simply correct it? Instead you assume right away it was "omitted" in an intention to mislead. This is sociopathic. Or, as I think, simply your very own English language "povpush". I'm gonna let you reread my first comment here, as I leave it to others to (re)read it. So I can stop here bringing actual content to the discussion.  All you ever do (in that PROD on the article's page especially), in short, is "presume" about bad others but act "in good faith" yourself (which is, as I said, considered rather weak and blurry criteria here in Wikipedia's sourcing rules). You bring absolutely nothing to the table but factual nonsense in bad faith as I think and a freaky way of expressing yourself. When I denote this critically, it is not offensive per se, but what can I do? Accept there are others, learn to write and argue in a consistent way and do not twist facts or even lie. And maybe learn proper French. Then you won't feel offended anymore. 95.90.118.201 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Clean hands: I have created the article Beethoven's liver as a notable viscus with reliable sources. These two stand or fall on the same grounds. Si Trew (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per GNG. I can find no sign of significant coverage of this report as a report. Searching news archives, I found no mention of the title given in this article and only four articles including the French title ("L'enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique"). Three were in publications that I have never heard of (Franc Parler, Le Faso, and AgoraVox); the fourth appears to be an EU press release. It is mentioned in some books, including Hellinger and Pauwels's (2007) Handbook of Language and Communication and Long and Doughty's (2011) Handbook of Language Teaching, but in discussion of ideas it contains, not of the report as such. Those topics are certainly notable, but the report itself is probably not. Some content might be merged to articles such as Languages of the European Union, Bilingual education, or Cultural policies of the European Union, inter alia. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Like Cnilep, I had no such luck finding suitable coverage of this report in news or book sources.  However, there is some scholarly commentary about the report in this peer reviewed journal (though it contains a few sentences about the report itself, and more about the ideas generally), and this peer-reviewed journal where the report is the primary subject of the report.  This doesn't quite push me to keep, however, on the basis that this single report seems to be the only substantial commentary on this document.  If there are additional sources, I'd be more willing to lean toward keep.  I, JethroBT  drop me a line 01:06, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I also want to note that I don't think these particular articles/journals have a particularly high number of citations/impact factor, and so its circulation and usage in scholarly work is unlikely to be significant. I, JethroBT  drop me a line 02:02, 26 September 2013 (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.