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. W.marsh 20:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eurolinguistics[edit]

Eurolinguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is identical to the second half of the article Languages of Europe. The article in itself is badly written and full of unsourced statements and original research, but it is because it already appears on Wikipedia that I have nominated it for deletion. JdeJ 15:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the main author of the article so let me add a few comments here. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was gonna say speedy redirect if the content is identical, but quick search tells me that this is topic at at least two German universities (U Mannheim, KU Eichstett), so this might be worthy of further investigation. I'm adding this to the WP:SCI test cases. ~ trialsanderrors 19:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not only a topic at these two universities, but also at the universities of Freiburg, Berlin, Regensburg, Passau, Frankfurt (Oder) and a number of universities outside Germany. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 19:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd say the article can stand as is with citations forthcoming with Languages of Europe being the main page. It may not seem it now, but I'm sure sources can be found to validate such a topic. SynergeticMaggot 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've now added sources at the beginning of each of my sections. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tricky issue. If this is a topic at some universities, it can be worth an article. But the article as it is, it is almost useless. Filled with errors and highly speculative. Perhaps the heading can be kept, but the text should be deleted. Making minor edits to a text this bad is not going to help much.Dusis 22:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added quite a number of concrete sources now at the beginning of each section. Moreover, the link to the plattform EuroLinguistiX (ELiX) had already been there. Readers could find over 20-something-page long bibliography of articles and books on various Eurolinguistic issues. I hope this shows that, as a matter of fact, nothing is speculative. If you find any errors, please tell me. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced original research and pure garbage at that. Only people who use the Latin alphabet are truly European? Yeah, right. This page is little more than a collection of errors and POV violations with no scholarly basis. The subject is so Mickey Mouse I suggest a merge with Eurodisney.--Folantin 10:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of aspects in your comment.

1. If you think that drawing an intersection from various sources on individual languages and language groups is original research, then the some of the points are original research. But then my understanding of OR has been different so far.

2. I can understand if Wikipedians are a bit worried if they see too much quoted from author's own books. I have therefore added a number of other sources now plus two reviews on my own book, which show you that it's not garbage.

3. Nowhere do I claim that using the Latin alphabet makes somebody European. I have simply given a current definition that is based on a whole series of cultural-anthropological features. If you're more happy with a well-known name, then let me just point out Huntington (I have added his name and book in the article).

4. I don't see the concrete POV violations. I don't evaluate in the article, I just observe and describe -- I'm a linguist. I don't see where the lack of basis should be unless you mean a lack of sources (which I have now added apart from my book).

Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - virtually unsourced, Wikipedia is not a place for academics to write up yesterday's lecture. Complete essay. WP:OR and WP:NFT. Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are now given. It's not yesterday's lecture, it's my everyday work. And it's many other linguists' work.-Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This word looks like a WP:NEO with only ~900 hits, but as Trialsanderrors has pointed out, it is being used in scientific fields (inc. conferences and journal names, and 20 scholar hits). I don't see any discussion yet on Wikipedia talk:Notability (science). John Vandenberg 12:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me only remind you that the term is not coined by myself, but was coined in 1991 by Norbert Reiter (as I've already written in the article). -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep First of all, it is not identical or even a rewrite of the 2nd half of Languages of Europe, but a considerable expansion, and undoubtedly worth an article, as this is a large subject. Not being an expert on the subject, i cannot tell to what extent it represents a different sub-discipline. The content looks solid and academic, at least to a non-expert. But i do know that it is unreferenced by any standard, regardless of subject. The way to show that sources can be found is to start finding them now and put them in. Certainly the first step is some general references.

If this is not an alternative and unrecognized theory, surely any of the books on the subject that are appropriate can be given. if it is an unrecognized theory, it still must be represented by more than the one book presently there. And if it is of this status, the differences from the standard view of the subject should be explicitly shown, to guide the outsiders to the field, with the proper balance. The way to deal with errors and speculations is to discuss them on the talk page, not here. DGG 21:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I hope that with my additions of sources, I have improved the article. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep It is definitely not identical to the second half of Languages of Europe. If it is badly written or if someone does not agree with the definition of Europe given in the article, the talk page should be the place to discuss this. Calling someone's research "pure garbage" without any investigation while at the same time criticizing the article for lacking a scholarly basis, does injustice to the Wiki-community. But that's just my two cent, of course. Susan 217.250.55.4 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. If indeed somebody feels that there are any language errors, just tell me. I have had the article read by a native before I placed it on Wikipedia, but not all errors might have been deleted. -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's the inclusion of articles like this that does "injustice to the Wiki-community". The valid linguistic information in this piece is available elsewhere on Wikipedia. The way it is stitched together here either constitutes original research or gives undue weight to a fringe theory. This page is completely unreferenced and I could cover the whole article with "citation needed" tags. The onus is not on me but the article's authors to provide proper sources, especially for the controversial claims this page makes. --Folantin 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the word "fringe theory": I don't put up any theory; I just describe the facts as far as they are known to us. Again, if you think that a synopsis and synthesis of facts is original research, then yes, some of the information given in the article (namely the one on communicative strategies) has been "synthesized" by myself and is in this sense OR. But most points are already common knowledge. Again, to show this I have now indicated a number of sources (including encyclopedias). -Sinatra 21:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The problem is not so much the English used in the article (I'm not a native speaker, mind you, so others may disagree). The main problem is all the factual errors and dubious statements made in the article. Dusis 17:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where you've detected factual errors. The facts presented are mostly based on other researchers' studies (I've now quoted the most important ones). Maybe you could give me a few more hints. -Sinatra 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks are due to Sinatra / Joachim Grzega for pointing out that he is the main author of the article. I'm afraid that that makes the quality of the article all the more dubious, as the main author frequently uses himself as the source.Dusis 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never quite understood the fear of many Wikipedians if somebody quotes from his/her own (expert) research as long as it's facts that are presented and not just guesses or evaluations. And again, I'm nut putting up any theory. Please note also that I've pointed out two reviews where my book is seen in a positive light. I'm really not keen on doing PR for my own book. I just want to offer and share my expert knowledge with Wikipedia users and contribute the results that (also my own) academic research has brought to light. But in case you would be happier if I quoted my own works less frequently, I could do so. -Sinatra 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (and possibly trim to the level of the German version, which seems a much better starting point for a balanced article). Factual inaccuracies are a content issue, AfD is to establish notability. There is enough academic activity around this topic, esp. in Germany, to consider it notable. ~ trialsanderrors 09:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I originally had. But then I thought that I could also share the knowledge of Eurolinguistic studies with Wikipedia users, incl. my own studies (because with quite a number of aspects I am the one who has come up with a synopsis and synthesis of individual facts). Of course I think it would be a pity to delete all the information, but if the majority thinks it should be crossed out I will accept it. (Just one question: would it help if somebody else inserted the same information?) -Sinatra 18:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, we don't delete here, we hide things in the edit history until they're sourced. Given the number of "source" and "dubious" tags it might be better to grow the article organically, and to state claims when they can be sourced, rather than to have a lengthy article full of post-it notes with question marks. Since you're the author of the book, that puts you in a bit of a WP:COI situation, although we're loath to run experts out of town. But as an expert you should also have access to what others have written on the topic, and in case of doubt refer to their work rather than your own. It's always a question of balance, and when the notability of a field is somewhat doubtful articles that make excessive use of personal sources tend to raise suspicions. ~ trialsanderrors 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. The article requires a complete rewrite, however I'm not convinced with the list and then article format of Languages of Europe. Addhoc 20:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.