Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Orthographies and dyslexia

This article is not original research, and is not a fork.

The causes of the dyslexic symptoms vary according to the structure of the writing system being used and the variation of orthography that entails. The proposer of this deletion has not give the articles editors time to develop the article, and to consult with other multi-discipline experts so that we can develop the article stage by stage. nor has the proposer provided any positive editorial contributions to the artilce to help make any of the required improvements.

In the Content forking

Article spinouts - "Summary style" articles Main article: Wikipedia:Summary style

Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article, see for example Wikipedia:Summary style, which explains the technique.

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others.

Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking, provided that all the sub-articles, and the summary conform to Neutral Point of View. Essentially, it is generally acceptable to have different levels of detail of a subject on different pages, provided that each provides a balanced view of the subject matter.

However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies.

Related articles

Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. As an example, clearly Joséphine de Beauharnais will contain a significant amount of information also in Napoleon I of France, this does not make it a fork.

Note also that in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term.

This article is a new sub article from the now summarised Dyslexia article and has been set up to provide more information regarding the effects of orthography on dyslexia. The main problem has been that the precious content had only referred to one writing system and the different orthographies with in that writing system ( the Latin alphabet Writing system) So there is a need to add information about the different writing systesm to this artilce, which has been taken from the existing WIKI articles regarding the different writing systems with the intention of the editors of the dyslexia project then edit these large chunks of information to help create a shortened version to explain these writing systems in the new dyslexia sub article Orthographies and dyslexia I am the editor who copied and pasted this content from the writing system articles. I did so as a source of information so that other editors could then edit this large bulk of information ito the various summaries we need for the new Orthographies and dyslexia due to my own form of dyslexia I am not able to perform this type of editing and require others in the project team to perform copywriting tasks. The proposer of this deletion has not given time for other editors to copywrite this new content, nor tried in anyway to copywrite the new information himself. So far from my personal perspective the proposer of this deletion has failed to demonstrate any understanding of dyslexia in any of his comments or contributions, and appears to carrying out a personal vendetta following my every move. I could be wrong. dolfrog (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)