Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standard-setting


 * 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 speedily deleted by User:Tom harrison per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Standard-setting

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. reason was: "An intriguingly vague essay consisting of verbiage interspersed with some references. It appears to be WP:OR" Fiddle   Faddle  13:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm not exactly sure why this page is up for deletion. Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible reason 2: It is not an notable entry WP:NO.
 * I now referenced two sources direclty in the beginning of the article to standard-setting as a notable topic. Hopefully this helps.

Possible reason 1: I referenced some Dutch research articles and books. Do English Wikipedia pages not like Dutch references?Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Some standard setting methods truly originate from Dutch scholars and I try to include references to their original publications.
 * I removed one reference to contained both the English and Dutch title of the article.

Possible reason 2: I'm still working quite hard on the page, so it is not actually finished. Can that be the problem?Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, given the critique my English is too poor at this point. It needs quite some work to turn it into acceptable English (I will strive for Oxford English!)

Possible reason 3: I copy-paste some of the text to literal from other sources? Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC). Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so this needs more work.
 * So, is it better to prepare the article outside of Wikipedia and then (when really finished) put it into Wikipedia?


 * With regard to the use of Wikipedia as a source, every tutor looks at Wikipedia with a "Yes, it's an interesting starting place, but can never be an authority" view. If you are creating a teacher's guide then Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Fiddle   Faddle  13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting this talk page. OK, so it must not be a teachers's guide style article. I think it is not. I really intend it to be a encyclopedic article, but do not seem to succeed. Sdraaijer (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC). I will take your comments seriously Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suspect the issue is that English is not your mother language, so this may be hard for you to achieve, but, if you can show that the topic is notable (read WP:N) and change the style so it does not look like original research (read WP:OR) then the article will survive. Other people will see that it is being discussed for deletion, too, so may join in. Fiddle   Faddle  13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I will try and do this and try to find and use the Deletion Discussion pages.Sdraaijer (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC). Found it. Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Finally: I will retire the article and work further in my sandbox untill it is improved sufficiently. Sdraaijer (talk) 16:07, 12 October 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.