Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learn These Words First


 * 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. Jujutacular (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Learn These Words First

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Sources in the article reference general facts about language and vocabulary. Only reference I could find online was on a Duolingo forum discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, TonyBallioni. The "Learn These Words First" dictionary was formerly called the "NSM+LDOCE" dictionary, so it's easier to find notable references to it under that name, for example:


 * NSM + LDOCE: A Non-Circular Dictionary of English http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2/226 which covers the NSM+LDOCE dictionary in depth.


 * Common language of all people: The innate language of thought http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS0032946011040065 which includes an appendix discussing the applications of the NSM+LDOCE dictionary.




 * The significance/notability of the dictionary is its approach to circular definitions: how they are avoided by splitting the defining vocabulary into multiple layers, where words in each layer are defined using only the words in the previous layers. The article needs work to make that clearer. First attempt to create a page -- should I have created some kind of draft page first and worked on it there? Lexyacc (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Tokoyogirl's comment below. I don't think this is notable, but it might be possible to establish notability for the creator if you could show multiple, reliable, third party sources mentioning him and his work. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - non-notable website. Author's edits on other pages seem mostly to be spam links to it. Blythwood (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Blythwood. I was attempting to update a few other Wikipedia articles to include recent research on defining vocabularies in learner's dictionaries (namely multi-layer approach to avoiding circular definitions). I wanted to point to the NSM+LDOCE / Learn These Words First dictionary as a good example of this, so adding a page about the dictionary seemed like a good approach, instead of just naming it in several articles. What do you think? Lexyacc (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Shawn in Montreal. Whoops, I mistakenly deleted two of your comments, thinking they were duplicates. (They have been restored.) Now it makes me wonder: do I need to respond to comments in all three of those discussions? Lexyacc (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC) (I now see it auto-magically updates on all those pages.)


 * This article needs a lot of work to establish that it's notable. As far as the website goes, it looks like it was created in 2014 and there's nothing to tie it to the name NSM+LDOCE other than the website creator's name, as this page says that it's based on the NSM+LDOCE, which is used for part of the website's educational plan, ie, the "34 middle layers". Now what I'd personally suggest here is that unless sourcing can be shown that establishes the website and lesson plan as a whole is notable, that you look into creating a page for the website and NSM+LDOCE's creator, David Bullock. (Note that one of the above sources given is by Bullock himself, so it'd be considered primary regardless of who published it.) That would potentially be far easier to create and assert notability for, if Bullock's work is frequently cited enough for him to be considered a notable academic/professor. It's really tough to assert notability for websites, as few gain the type of coverage needed to pass NWEB. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  11:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi, Tokyogirl79. In editing several other articles, I found myself repeatedly adding the same material about (1) multi-layer defining vocabulary structure, (2) NSM+LDOCE as the best academic reference, and (3) Learn These Words First as a public website where people could see the concept at work (instead of just reading about it). It would be nice to have an article to point to from other articles (so I could streamline some of my redundant edits). Would it make sense to create a more notable article by merging these three related concepts into one article? Lexyacc (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Improved article - The latest version attempts to clarify notability by improving references and merging three related concepts (Learn These Words First dictionary, multi-layer structure, NSM+LDOCE research) organized under different subheadings. What do you think? Lexyacc (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Create new article? - Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. I am thinking the focus of the article should really be about the "Multi-layer dictionary" concept, rather than a particular example (Learn These Words First / NSM+LDOCE). In my sandbox, I have been working on rewriting the article with that focus. Would that help notability? I'd still like to mention a concrete example in the article to help explain and clarify the concept. Should I go ahead and create a "Multi-layer dictionary" article and submit it as a draft? Or is there some other procedure I should follow? Lexyacc (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't see anything notable here or a way to bring this article to notability even. -- Dane 2007  talk 18:34, 22 August 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.