Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slave trade and nautical language theory of Creole Genesis


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE. Herostratus 06:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Slave trade and nautical language theory of Creole Genesis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unencyclopedic and reads like an essay. Possibly original research. Nick—Contact/Contribs 18:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can prove that it isn't OR. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 18:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a strange little page. It feels like a content fork (legitimate or not) from somewhere else. Anybody got any guesses? -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete, violates OR. --Cremepuff222  ( talk,  review me! ) 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like OR to me. Realkyhick 04:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 *  Comment Delete Unencyclopedic per nom. It is a strange page yes, maybe a copy vio of a scholarly theoretical publication. At any rate, it looks a little like a copy vio. --Paloma Walker 05:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, violates WP:OR, maybe even a copyvio. Sr13 (T|C) 06:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete if the !vote for this results in delete, the deleting admin needs to take a long hard look at Creole Monogenesis Theory, Imperfect second language learning theory, Foreigner talk theory, The Language Bioprogram theory, Superstrate Theories, Substrate Theories and Evolutionary Theory as well, all of which were originally created by the same author as part of the same walled garden. They all also appear either to be the same piece of OR and/or copyvio as well. "Evolutionary Theory", in particular, I cannot imagine anyone searching for in this context. -  Irides centi   (talk to me!)  14:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like pretty clear OR to me.  Ford MF 07:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, along with the other seven articles Iridescenti noted, as possible original research and/or copyvios, and very unencyclopedic. Some of these are valid linguistic topics, but we already have articles like Superstrate and Substrate and Creole language and Syntactic similarities of creoles, so these suspect articles are redundant. --Miskwito 22:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (changed to Weak keep and cleanup, per Lambiam, below) --Miskwito 23:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. In light of Lambiam's points below, I guess it might be reasonable to keep the article (assuming it's completely rewritten), or recreate it with new text after its deletion. But is "slave trade and nautical language theory of creole genesis" the term encountered for this theory in the literature? The name of the article should be the most common term for the theory, I think. --Miskwito 22:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there are several less felicitous aspects about the article. But these can be addressed by the usual wiki process of gradual improvements. I don't know of a "canonical name" for the theory, but "slave trade" and "nautical language" are certainly key elements; see for example this slide presentation giving an overview of the diverse theories of the origin of pidgins and creoles. In any case, names can be improved by renaming the article, infractions on the MoS can be dealt with by wikification, and so on. None of this requires article deletion. --Lambiam Talk  23:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This theory and several others (for example the monogenesis theory) are quite well-known and notable among scholars of creole languages, even though most (but definitely not all) have relinquished these in favour of Bickerton's theory (see Syntactic similarities of creoles). I have even heard a lecture in which it was argued (without much evidence) that the nautical lingua franca acquired during the transport was Portuguese-based, which supposedly explained the large number of Portuguese loan words in the lexica of Carribean creoles. I don't have access to a library and so I can't check or prove this, but I'm fairly certain that these theories are discussed in several of the references given in the article. The argument for deletion that we already have articles on possibly related, but clearly different theories does not wash with me. Possible copyvio is also a dubious argument. --Lambiam Talk  22:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why would this be original research? It is an important linguistic topic, and the article is obviously a review of research and publications by others, and clearly attributes the views and hypotheses expressed to the scholarly publications listed in the bibliography. The article and the others by the same user may need restructuring and merging, but I fail to see any basis for deletion. Pharamond 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, if it is such an important topic, why do no articles or portals link to this? Also, an article with sources may still be OR through synthesis. Mr.Z-man  talk ¢ Review! 22:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That linguists have published and debated extensively on the issue of the origin of Creole languages shows that it is an important topic. The reason that there are no articles linking to this could be, um, perhaps that the article is brand new, written by a complete Wikipedia newbie and has a cumbersome title. As for the issue of synthesis, well, please tell me in what way this text comes up with something new beyond summarizing the cited publications. Should your mere suspicion that it does be enough to have the article deleted? Pharamond 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article reads like an essay? Hell, the damn title reads like an essay.  The few references that are there, if real, might denote that this could be a useful section of another article about the slave trade.  Maybe.  Otherwise, nukify it. --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 03:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The topic is a linguistic topic. The article reports on a linguistic theory about the genesis of creole languages. Why do you doubt that the references are real?   --Lambiam Talk  05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yukichigai. Unclear, messy, and poorly sourced. Arbustoo 00:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Poorly sourced with 4 references for 3 paragraphs of text? --Lambiam Talk  05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to say that this debate shows the Wikipedia community at its very worst. Unfounded claims of original research when the article clearly appears to do nothing more than summarizing existing and cited publications and research, speculations about plagiarism from some unspecified source nobody can bother to name, and even one user implying that the references are invented... Sheesh! Pharamond 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. This is a relatively young article. The charges that it is original research or in violation of copyright are largely at odds one with the other, yet are above sometimes both being made by single editors, and no evidence other than speculation is being offered in defense of these charges. —SlamDiego 19:41, 4 April 2007 (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.