Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transparent Language Online


 * 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. Improving parts of the article (if any) is highly encouraged to prevent renomination in the near future. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2022) 14:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Transparent Language Online

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

G11 speedy was removed with the rationale, "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... I'm reading this as not unambiguously promotional, certainly at every version. No objection to AfD testing." This is one of the most obvious advertisements I've seen on Wikipedia. After the lead, the entire piece is simply a product brochure for the products of the company.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment:: I randomly came across when visiting the creator's talk page on another matter, observed the CSD notice and took a peek. The history and edit summaries looked a little unusual (I have subsequently noticed a histmerge which seems a little unusual.  At a skim the references looked at least reasonable, the jstor at a glance looking significant.  One persons feature is another person's advertisement.  A CSD contestation requires immediate action, which is what I've taken, to take a longer term look, possibly at AfD. : With apologies for annoying people with the ping, but making best efforts to avoid a biased canvas, can I ask as having made a significant contribution or been involved in the histmerge do you any of you wish to make any comments here to fill in background? Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know what the heck is going on here. I DID NOT write this article. I don't even remember this subject let alone know anything about it. I don't even think I accepted it via AfD. Maybe I moved it and did something weird by creating a new article versus moving it properly from AfD? Suffice to say, I did not write this and that's evident - if you know my work, and also notice when I "created" the page I added four tags for notability, COI, sources and verification. Regardless, I don't care what happens to it. Missvain (talk) 03:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didn't even notice that the history log listed you as the article creator, so my apologies for the template on your talk page. Obviously, this is not your work.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment at the minimum the entire “Products and services” section has to go. It’s got anonymous endorsements and unsourced product material. Not sure about the rest. Mccapra (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I see now that this is largely a question of style and formatting. There are in fact multiple reviews of the software by independent scholars so there is certainly the basis for a valid article. I don’t think this is it though. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉  (HAPPY 2022) 12:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think I'd normally !vote keep with qualification to stubify sand re-create. However I am minded there are attribution concerns/errors with the current article that may not be resolvable and TNT may be required.  This is one of the few occasions where a I might find a TNT is required rather than a STUBIFY  may be required. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: *Delete: (with caveats): If the attribution mistakes/error(s) cannot be fully resolved/reconciled - and I totally accept any that may have occurred were doen in good faith - I request hard delete (needs to be hard), but requests closer makes it abundantly clear no objection to a good fiath re-creation. Please be aware I have created in a page my userspace the set of bare URLs and categories which I would intent to use as the basis of a page recreation without attribution issues (although it would still be a bit of a good faith gazump).  If attribution issues are fully resolved I would wish to change by vote to keep with closer indicate a need for immediate stubification which I would hope to do, RL permitting.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC) I believe the attribution issues are now resolvable so will re-!vote below. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The reason it shows Missvain as creator, is that Missvain brought it back from a deletion file to draft space so it could be made acceptable. Years ago the article was created, I don't remember by whom or when. It had no independent sources, so it was deleted. I hadn't seen the deletion discussion, but knew the article existed, and knew there were reliable sources showing its significance in online language teaching, so I asked for it to be brought back, and Missvain brought it back to draft space. Another editor and I made some improvements, citing the academic sources, and made it a live article again. As people have said, this could certainly be done better. It is a notable company, based on its coverage in academic journals. It has roles in both military teaching, and general teaching. Kim9988 (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for the additional background information. Useful.  If the article is kept "as-is" with attribution issues not fixed on edit summary/talk page then I would intend to immediately re-test against copyvio criteria as Db-G12 seems applicable, but I would not use that as there is a plausible possibility, perhaps even a probability than the reason the histmerge seemingly had null effect was that all previous nominations were by anon IPs : In this use case I am minded a dummy an edit summary of the form "This article was created by Missvain from contributions of anonymous IPs - see Special:Diff/1062078371" (Or ideally some sort of improvement on that to the effect Missvain was not responsibie for content on creation and an admin confirms all content at creation was originally. But if that cases is not evidenced I may recheck Copyright violations to determine a way forward, or if that gives no prescriptive way forward maybe think of alternatives.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment (simples? request): Sorry to disturb people but can an admin,, or please confirm the article Missvain created the current article incarnation from was created from an incarnation where all significant contributions were from anonymous IP editors, thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Missvain created the article Transparent Language Online, but (up to the time of writing) did not edit it again, according to its history as shown by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transparent_Language_Online&action=history .That first edit ends in 8 references, which may say where some of its material was taken from. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't remember, honestly, but that sounds about right. See what I said above - anyone who knows my edit history knows a subject like this is not in my wheelhouse. Clearly this involved helping someone, Articles for Creation, etc. Sorry I don't remember. I hit 200,000 edits recently - all done by hand and not by bots - so I might forget a few things sometimes. No need to ping me unless it's absolutely necessary. I don't care what happens to this article, TBH. Missvain (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a dummy entry on the article refering MissVain's disclaimer above. This is to confirm on the edit summary that the attribution of that content does not fall to MissVain.  I happier having made that from an attribution viewpoint .... it does not mean anything beyond that. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @: I'm interested in the Histmerge at Special:Diff/1041918974 where you seemm to have implemented a Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, possibly unsuccessfully? In fact while writing this I think I see what may have happened .... Can you please REFUND Draft:Transparent Language which was likely deleted then REFUNDed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transparent Language so we can see what's been going on? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Draft:Transparent Language has one deleted edit, and that deleted edit is "#REDIRECT Transparent Language Online". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @: Thankyou for lookin at that. Sorry for being a pain, can you look at the deleted article Transparent Language and refund that to my userspace instead (There should be a full copy of Transparent Language at at its XfD around somewhere in this cloud of unknowing.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have copied the latest edit into User:Djm-leighpark/Transparent Language. Articles for deletion/Transparent Language says why it was deleted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ Thankyou for doing that, but its not what I'm looking for.as it is the attribution history that is important. Cut/paste copies just don't cut the mustard; its likely why were mostly here in the first place.  It's just possible the talk pages history might be useful as well.  This will be heading for a DRV at this rate and none of us need the drama llama.  Please REFUND all versions of Transparent Language and its talk page ... I should have made it clear I did not want a cut and paste copy.  I can go to Requests for undeletion if you are busy.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk)


 * It is now all at User:Djm-leighpark/Transparent Language. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's great. The attribution history is at  and there are several whp need there contributions to this acknowledged if Transparent Language Online is kept.  Relevant information/procedures are at WP:RUD and following and at Requests for history merge on howto manage this sitations.  Phew.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Now attribution are resolvable and CWW peroblems fixable. The G11 concerns have some traction and will need WP:STUBIFY and for atributions to be fixed.  Sources show sufficiently notable. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So, perhaps, User:Djm-leighpark/Transparent Language should then be history-merged into Transparent Language Online. If the first of you (Djm-leighpark) agrees with this, then the second of you (Anthony Appleyard) should do the merge. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the article reads like an advert. --<b style="color:#7F007F">Devokewater</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk) 21:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The advert reason concerns are why I've offered, actually committed, to WP:STUBIFY on keep to get good baseline. Its great the attribution is sorted so this is possible.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify to let Djm fix the article, and upon improvement can be moved back to mainspace. Jumpytoo Talk 23:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To make this abundantly clear, given the amount of time I've had to waste on this due to copy violation/attribution failures, from my point of view I am refusing draftication for me to work on this. If drama is wanted it will be had, and there may be consequences I'm tryng to avoid. That may seem unreasonable, but its my RL too. To be clear, I will likely DRV on draftication. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment: Revision 1064718635 is WP:STUBIFYed non-G11 & sources (Graham, 1992); (Saury, 1998); (Wildner, 2002) and pretty much most sources on the revision and a few not on it past satisify all relevant policies, guidelines, GNG, NSOFT etc. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.