Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orthographies and dyslexia


 * 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. The article has gone through revisions during this discussion that satisfy many of the concerns. There is obviously still room for improvement but the consensus that evolved is that this is sufficiently inclusion-worthy to keep in the mainspace for improvement, rather than shunting it to user space. Whether that improvement ultimately results in a merge elsewhere or a standalone article is not for this discussion to dictate. Shereth 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthographies and dyslexia

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Much of this is unsourced content fork from Orthography articles with virtually no mention of the orthography/dyslexia topic it's supposed to cover, and the proposed development is heading toward original research as an analysis of orthography vs. dyslexia that has not been made in secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely that the current content is way off-mark. Most of it is copied from other existing Wikipedia articles, and a significant portion of it is clearly not based on secondary sources.


 * I started a discussion on the article's talk page asking that we narrow the focus specifically to the role of orthography in the problems experienced by dyslexic readers. The article will have to have a very little general info about orthography to place the dyslexia information in the necessary context, but there is no need to rely on primary sources.


 * The following paragraphs are the kind of information that *should* be in the article (though the paragraphs clearly need work as they are disjointed and incomplete):


 * Alphabetic writing systems vary significantly in the complexity of their orthography. For languages that have more shallow orthographies, such as Italian and Finnish, new readers have few problems learning to decode words. In these languages, dyslexic readers tend to have more problems with reading fluency and comprehension
 * Alphabetic writing systems vary significantly in the complexity of their orthography. For languages that have more shallow orthographies, such as Italian and Finnish, new readers have few problems learning to decode words. In these languages, dyslexic readers tend to have more problems with reading fluency and comprehension


 * For languages with deep orthographies, new readers have a great deal more difficulty learning to decode words, such as English and French in the Latin Alphabetic writing system.


 * A study comparing children's reading acquisition rates between different orthography of European Language (alphabet writing systems ), Seymour et al. 2003, found that children from a majority of European countries become accurate and fluent in foundation level reading before the end of the first school year. There are some exceptions, notably in French, Portuguese, Danish, and, particularly, in English. The effects appear not to be attributable to differences in age of starting or letter knowledge. It is argued that fundamental linguistic differences in syllabic complexity and orthographic depth are responsible. Syllabic complexity selectively affects decoding, whereas orthographic depth affects both word reading and non-word reading. The rate of development in English is more than twice as slow as in the shallow orthographies. It is hypothesized that the deeper orthographies induce the implementation of a dual (logographic + alphabetic) foundation which takes more than twice as long to establish as the single foundation required for the learning of a shallow orthography. [2][3]


 * In the deepest orthographies, the hallmark symptom of dyslexia is the inability to read at the word level. These these dyslexic readers frequently have many fewer problems with comprehension once some level of decoding has been mastered.




 * Although the article needs a great deal of work to get it in line with wikipedia standards, the topic of how orthographies affect reading acquisition in dyslexics must be addressed in the dyslexia series of articles. If this article is deleted, I'll have to add a new article for that content.  I don't mind, but very likely we'll still have to wrangle a bit over what information should be included in it so I don't see how deleting this one would solve anything.


 * I suggest that we allow discussion on the Talk page some time to address the obvious problems with content, and tag the article with whatever template messages are appropriate --- need for secondary sources, need to cite sources, need for more content, whatever.


 * Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought this to AFD because, as you say, it's way off mark and the prime mover,, is completely impermeable - tendentiously so - to changing track or providing required sources. I say bin it with no prejudice to re-creation if/when we have something entirely focused on the said topic and based on secondary sources. But currently, I think the whole concept is insufficiently sourced to merit an article. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Gordonofcartoon said: "I say bin it with no prejudice to re-creation if/when we have something entirely focused on the said topic and based on secondary sources. "


 * Don't look now, but you just gave an example of when it might be appropriate to develop a new article in a sandbox .....  :-)


 * I don't object to deleting it for now. Actually, I've thought that it might be better to combine this topic in with other topics that are contributing factors.  Dolfrog has good intentions, but you're right, he can be difficult and stuck on seeing things in a particular way.


 * I just want to put on the record that there is some information in the article that is based on secondary sources and on topic; and also that I can provide additional sources right now for the dyslexia-related parts. I add sources as I add information from those sources.


 * Bottom line, either way is fine with me. Either way we're going to be dealing with the same difficulties.


 * Best, Rosmoran (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion. The article needs editing, not deletion. -- Evertype·✆ 08:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —+Angr 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

From my talk page regarding the the motivations of User:Gordonofcartoon If you can write 700-word essays justifying your edits, you haven't got a communication problem. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC) This just a further demonstration of your failure to understand the nature of my communication disability, this is now becoming your preferred form of self imposed ignorance and which translates into pure disability discrimination on your part. dolfrog (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now to the mater in had. this article is a new sub article which is the result of the the summay editing of the main Dyslexia article. The aim of this new sub article is to explain the effect of orthography on dyslexia, which was and is the section heading on the dyslexia article. AS i have said from the outset of the Dyslexia project some 2 years ago I due to the severity of my clinically diagnosed communication disability Auditory Processing Disorder I can not carry out what you call copywriting I can however research and find texts from other sources which other editors in the team can copywrite on my behalf and therefore towards the common goal of improving articles. What find objectionable is how some editors just delete the content of articles content and ask for deletion when thye have not even bothered to try to understand the issues involved nor the different deficits and abilities of other editors involved. From my perspective this proposal for deletion is a further demonstration of a particular editors unwillingness to act in good faith, and to try to understand and support other editors. I am aware that I am not the easiest person to get on with, but that is due to living with Auditory Processing Disorder. I am always open to well argued and discussed opinions which differ from my own using plain English, unfortunately some WIKI editors insist on using uncomprehensable WIKI jargon, and fail to discuss their editorial actions in plain English so that all can understand what is going on.


 * the aim of this article is to first explain what the different writing systems are, which is why content has ben taken from artilces specific to these topics, which will require copywriting by other editors. There is also some copy right sensitive content which also requires copywriting by other editors. After describing the technical difference between the different writing system the next stage is to define the different neurological skills required to perform the task of reading the different orthographies of these different writing systems. And finally it will then be possible to compare the neurological skill requirements of each orthography with the different neurological skill deficits that can cause dyslexia. This will then begin to explain the existing case study of a a bilingual individual, Japanese and English, but who was dyslexic only in one language English.


 * this artricle has only just been taken on for improvement by the the revised team of WikiProject Dyslexia editors some of whom are refreshing themselves with the recent substantial changes made to the Wikipedia dyslexia articles. Dyslexia is a very complex issue which requires a great deal of research to understand. I have asked for expert help from the Neurology Task force, and from the Writing System team. I have also noticed that a member of ther lingistics project has made some recent edits. This article will require a multi-discipline approach to editing because dyslexia is a multi-discipline issue. It takes time to find editors from these different disciplines to find the time to help out. So this article needs more time to develop, with a great deal more copywriting from those able to carryout that particular task.

dolfrog (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy for now. It's an encyclopedic topic and needs improvement, not deletion. That being said, right now it's all about orthography, hardly even mentions dyslexia; it looks like an article still under construction. Suggest userfying it for improvements (and not leaving a redirect, since we don't want cross-namespace redirects from articles to userspace) until it actually covers its proclaimed topic. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Userfy and perhaps stub, agree with Rjanag. The subject seems fairly obviously worthy of coverage.  The instant text seems to be largely copied from other articles, and only briefly mentions dyslexia.  Seems to be a work in progress.  A brief stub from the lede might be profitably left until the rest of the text has been related to the actual subject at hand. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, I'm skeptical of all "X and Y" topics. "Orthography" is a natural, legitimate encyclopedia topic. So is "dyslexia". But the intersection of these two topics doesn't make for yet another encyclopedia entry, but only for an essay. That the article is such a cobbled-together mixture of marginally relevant material covered better elsewhere is not coincidental; it's the consequence of the poor choice of topic. It might be an interesting topic for an essay, but as far as its matters belong in an encyclopedia, they belong in Dyslexia research. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This information was originally in the dyslexia article. When we made the plan to break the article up into a series, it became clear that research into the etiology of dyslexia and effective interventions would also be more than one article should contain.  As it turns out, this article is actually a subordinate of the dyslexia research article, which itself became unwieldy because of the complexity of the topic. There's no way to tell that right now as the structural components enabling easy navigation have yet to be implemented.


 * I have run into several topics that have been covered very effectively with an article series using summary style, and this is what we're trying to do. The topic of dyslexia, however, tends to generate controversy, so reaching consensus about what should and should not be included in a particular article can take awhile.  We eventually get there.


 * I don't know what the correct Wiki procedure is when an article is clearly not ready for prime time. I have in the past done initial development of a new article in my sandbox.  But as Gordonofcartoon rightly pointed out, that doesn't work when there are multiple editors involved in developing the article.  You quickly end up with multiple sandboxes and a confused team of editors.


 * If someone can tell me how to make the article a "stub" while the real content is created elsewhere, or coach me in how to "userfy" the article, I can make sure that we follow that process.


 * Thanks, everyone. Believe it or not, this kind of feedback is really helpful.


 * Best, Rosmoran (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Userification" just means moving the page to your userspace (e.g., User:Rosmoran/whatever-name-you-want. Stubbing means removing all of the copyvio/unsourced/not ready text.  (Sometimes people move the "imperfect" text to the article's talk page for future reference.)  Any autoconfirmed editor can do either of these things.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Gordonofcartoon,
 * So, if we "stub" and "userfy," that puts me working in my sandbox again. You seemed to object pretty strongly to article development in a sandbox.  Are you OK with this?
 * Thanks, Rosmoran (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I objected to a collection of related articles being diverted into multiple sandboxes under the management of a single editor of uncertain neutrality, in a way that came across as topic ownership. As things are going, it looks as if the AFD has attracted more editors, which is what the article needed. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In theory I favor keeping the article as a worthwhile topic. But I have no objection to userfying it until such time as the article accurately reflects the topic suggested in the first paragraph of the lead section, as recommended by Rjanag and Smerdis of Tlön. Cnilep (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note the major changes to the article noted below happened at this point. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands the article is still not actually about dyslexia, but about differences in how different orthographies are learned with small notes about the typical symptoms expressed by dyslexics who use these orthographies. Merge with Orthography, which much of this article already duplicates, and refactor it as a section about how different orthographies are learned, including notes about the symptoms of dyslexia and other learning disabilities. This could and should be summarised into a paragraph at the Dyslexia article, but only the bits actually relevant to dyslexia, without the detailed discussion of orthographies. Both the comparison of orthographies and how orthography affects dyslexia are encyclopaedic, but this article doesn't really deal with the latter, and removing the duplication of the Orthography leads to much less than a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since your comment above I have revised the layout and added two new sub sections. This artilce will require a great deal of input from multi-discipline teams:-Linguists, Writing Systems, Orthography, Speech and language, Neurology, and Dyslexia. The article came out of the Dyslexia when it was summerised. The intila imput from ther Dyslexia article has been removed for reasons of copyright, and needs to be copy-edited to be re- introduced into the article, Currently this and other information has now been included on a new sandbox Orthographies and dyslexia/Sandbox The information which was added from various orhtography artilces was and will be required to help define what an orthography is and how orthographies vary both between and within the various writing Systems (this could not be done on the main Dyslexia article) The next step is for the Linguists to help describe the different skills required to use the various types of orthogrphy. And the final step after the various skill combinations have been described, it will then be possible to relate this to the information or skill deficits that cause dyslexia.

There are existing case studies of bilingual individuals being dyslexic in only one language, and research from Hong Kong has identified different areas of brain inactivity in when dyslexics try to read either Chinese or English. So this artilce is only in its formative stages, and we need more time to gain more input from a wide range of disciplines who have not previously contributed to articles in the Dyslexia Project. dolfrog (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Would someone look at the article to see if we can remove the Deletion tag?
Hi,

I have done the following:


 * Removed the information copied from other articles
 * Added appropriate information to two sections
 * Stub-ified sections where we have no appropriate information
 * Added appropriate template cleanup messages

Would someone please look at the article and see if we can remove the Delete template now?

Thanks much,

Rosmoran (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just removing the tag wouldn't do any good. The AfD needs to be properly closed, which is usually done about a week after it opened.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything that I need to do to let someone know that I think the problems have been resolved? Or does this happen on some automatic schedule?


 * Thanks, Rosmoran (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What happens is that 7 days after the article was nominated for deletion, an uninvolved administrator will come along and read the discussion. Based on their reading of the discussion, they will determine whether a consensus about what outcome is desirable has been reached. If there is clear consensus then they will close the AfD, and implement the consensus, if the consensus is to keep then they will remove the AfD tag from the article. If there is no consensus after 7 days there are two options, either the AfD can be relisted for another period (up to another 7 days) to see if consensus develops; or the debate can be closed as no consensus (which defaults to keep) and the deletion tag will be removed from the article. The former is most likely in low participation discussions, or where there has been significant change to the article since many of those commenting expressed their opinion, while the latter is more likely in high participation discussions where it is unlikely that consensus will be reached even with more time. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. Do you think we have concensus now? Rosmoran (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The article at this point seems to be acceptable, and  acceptably sourced. DGG (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mainspace. While many 'intersection' topics are not in the scope of the encyclopedia, this one is not one of those. Orthography is a major element in all dyslexia and dyslexics. The article has been substantially rewritten to address some of the nominator's concerns.  Source removedness, quality and quantity are the main issues to be worked out now, and that does not require deletion.Synchronism (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (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.