Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Looks like a research paper that's been pasted into Wikipedia. Could be worthy of inclusion (perhaps as History of the French language in England or some such title??) but with the "Conclusions" section and the one reference this looks like huge WP:OR.  Ja Ga  talk 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep . The article in it's current form is not written in a wikipedia style. Nevertheless it contains a lot of good information, and I don't think anyone would seriously argue against the notability of the topic itself. AfD hero (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Switch to neutral. If the article is deleted, do so without prejudice towards recreation in the future. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete The intro alone clearly indicates this is an essay. (count the uses of the word "we"....)  Further reading looks like synth, complete with a Conclusions section.  Clearly does not belong here.  Dennis Brown (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear case of WP:OR (the "conclusions" section even says "this research.."). No doubt an interesting topic, but not a topic for a WP article at present. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. An article on the history of English and/or French would be appropriate for Wikipedia, but this is unsalvageable for encyclopaedia purposes. Almost completely unsourced and full of opinions and subjective emphasis. Interesting take on the subject, but this is the wrong website. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. WP:OR is not valid grounds for deletion of a notable topic. Proper course of action is to improve the article by removing OR, even if that means editing it down to a stub. AfD hero (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated below, WP:OR is grounds for deletion if removing the OR means removing everything and a replacement stub would be meaningless. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that after this content is deleted, it should be userfied to AfD hero, or incubated. AfD hero seems convinced that this is salvageable, so he should not be denied the opportunity to try. I must say, though, that we will not find sources on "the different statuses of French in England between the 11th and 21st centuries".  We may find sources for Jaga's suggestion, "History of the French Language in England"—so if this is kept, it would need to be renamed to what the sources call it.  And also, removing the unsourced content would leave us with a tiny stub; replacing it with sourced content would mean a total rewrite from start to finish.  Thus, if the outcome of this is "keep", then it's keep but with a different name and different content; I'm having trouble seeing the point, personally.  Good luck with improving the article, though.— S Marshall  T/C 22:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a WP:CFORK that is covered by France – United Kingdom relations. OCNative (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Essential reading for this topic is For to Speke Frenche Trewely which is reviewed here at the Journal of French Language Studies. Developing the topic from such sources is our editing policy; deletion is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That one book covers 1000–1600, not 1000 to the present. And the time frame here seems arbitrary.  Why not the 3rd century to now? 1951 to 1973? It also doesn't address the fact that the current article would have to be completely deleted IF (and I do mean if) it was notable, as it is 100% synth.  You can't convert this from an essay to an article without using liberal amounts of fire.  Sorry if it comes across sharp, but we often do delete if nothing is salvageable and notability isn't obvious.  Dennis Brown (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The timeframe is since the Norman conquest (or since a Norman woman married into the English royal house). —Tamfang (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * keep the subject is notable. Col.W has shown there are specific sources devoted to it, and thee are of course many others that discuss it. For almost any broad historical period, there are various possible cut-off dates, and there is no reason to expect or require exact correspondence as long as the subject is treated.  DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 22 May 2011 (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.