Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Has Hlai grammar


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  11:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Has Hlai grammar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Violates WP:NOTADVICE. Does not sound or read encyclopedic, feels like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Aasim 04:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTADVICE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Possibly a copyright violation as well, but I cannot access the sources to confirm that. This article is an unsalvageable mess that seemingly only exists for the purpose of breaking as many of Wikipedia's guidelines on articles as possible. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Just in case it winds up mattering, there's also The Basic Grammar Rules of the Standardized Has Hlai Language, Lauxhuet dialect, which was moved from the user's sandbox first and contains the actual revision history. The mainspace one was copy/pasted from  here it appears. I've currently listed this at WP:RMTR to have the proper version in place, but it shouldn't really matter as far as the AfD is concerned. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify (the original) unless sufficiently repaired during this AFD: From the article history of the original, it's probably not a copyvio, or at least not an unredeemable one. It's obviously not in a state to remain in mainspace, but there's an article that does belong in mainspace which uses the information currently in the article, probably titled Lauhut dialect and which should be linked from Hlai languages and Template:Kra–Dai languages. See links from Template:English_dialects_by_continent for examples of what the article could be. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Draft or userfy. This has the wrong title, the wrong layout, and a good deal of non-encyclopedic content. But along with that is a good deal of very useful information that can and should be modified into an encyclopedia entry. Also, merge this history with that of The Basic Grammar Rules of the Standardized Has Hlai Language, Lauxhuet dialect (if such a thing is possible). Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, very obviously keep. The grammar of a language is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic (we've already got over a hundred of these). This article is a descriptive (not prescriptive) grammar, so NOTADVICE cited above is irrelevant. As far as I can see, it has all the things you'd expect to see in a grammar article, and none of those you wouldn't. I've had a look at a few sections, and they were well sourced and sensibly written. Yes, a light touch of copyediting might be necessary here and there, and the article could certainly be improved by a trim down of some of the examples (if they're so many they might overwhelm the reader), a shortening of the section headings, and the addition of a summary at the beginning of each section. Oh yes, and it should be renamed to Has Hlai grammar or something similar. But that's all work that can easily be done in mainspace. – Uanfala (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. This article is indeed a complete trainwreck in terms of both content and formatting (some serious cutting down is needed), but the current sourcing is enough to establish notability, and deletion is not cleanup. (Uanfala refutes the "INDISCRIMINATE" and "NOTADVICE" claims better than I could.) There may be issues with copyright, but until someone actually checks the sources for them, that is irrelevant. This should also not be draftified because that would only serve to hide the content from potential cleaners. Glades12 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable. The article needs a lot of tidying and trimming. I’ve no way of knowing if there’s a copyvio-if there is that would obviously change things. Can a Chinese speaker advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 06:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This article is notable but may need re-arrangement.This is an encyclopaedic article,not a language learner website.Thanks.User:Saadulhassan2 —Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify. Languages are presumed notable but this needs some trimming and vetting via reliable sources first. I won't oppose a plain keep, but it makes me wary. If we can help, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup per and . The topic is notable, and the cleanup/trimming can and should happen in mainspace. –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep NOTADVICE has no relevance to a descriptive grammar article and the reference to INDISCRIMINATE is just plain baffling. The only point of contention in the nomination that has any merit is the tone but the "not" that is much more appropriate to this discussion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. There is therefore no actionable argument for deletion and it should be kept and improved.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 6 May 2020 (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.