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. east.718 at 17:18, January 13, 2008

International English[edit]

Keep per WP:SNOW - Non-admin closure. D.M.N. (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a request HERE I have reopened this AFD. I apologise for any inconvienence caused. D.M.N. (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article unencyclopaedic, without sources, probably entirely WP:OR or covered by other articles. This concept is covered under multiple pages and this one has to be the most ambiguous and unsourced. Two fellow users supported deletion on talk, including one with significant input to the article, and another user removed prod but said would not oppose AfD. Additional citations have been needed since July 2007 and none have materialised. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up. You say "unencyclopedic, without sources" but the twenty-seven sources listed indicate otherwise. That the topic is notable is indicated by the Google Books result for "international.english" as a phrase, which yields more than 1000 books starting with English as a Global Language and International English Usage. Google Scholar yields more than three thousand academic sources for this topic. You're going to have to be much more specific about this article's failings and why it is not a candidate for cleanup. --Dhartung | Talk 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are references to books with additional details, not sources, and there are eight articles that deal with the topic of an international or simplified English in the "Dialects of English" template, most of which are by far more sourced and relevant. Googling "international english" in reference to this article alone is like googling "encyclopaedia" and claiming all the results to validate the Wikipedia. I'll try and address any concerns but won't babysit this AfD, I am merely proposing the article for deletion as it stands. It'd be more NPOV and less WP:OR to start afresh if anyone wanted to recreate the article, not to mention sourced from the beginning. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 10:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, they are sources, as evidenced by the lengthy talk page discussions about them (q.v.), the fact that they are in a section entitled "References", and the fact that they are cross-referenced from the article text. Uncle G (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:FAR shows that there are many, many highly-regarded articles on Wikipedia that were written in this format before 2005 when easier citation tools became available. A section of books with additional details per the WP:MOS is called "Further reading", not "References". I take the original editors at their word. The job of adding citations may be drudgery but not wanting to do it isn't a reason for deletion. Ideally, no article in Wikipedia is ever finished; all articles need work. --Dhartung | Talk 11:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wasn't aware of the pre-05 format, but I still don't believe that cleaning the article up will remove all the POV and OR, and as the article would have to be almost or entirely rewritten in any case, deletion will prevent any of the current faults creeping into the new version. And a notice that the article needs improvement has been up for half a year, with minimal effort made. There are too few interested editors for us to wait years and years for any substantial improvement. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 13:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The citations are already there. What you are talking about are cross-references to those citations in the article text. A citation is not the little superscript hyperlink. It's the author+title+date+publisher+whatever stuff. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content#The requirement is only that the sources be cited somehow. Uncle G (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Lack of work is not a reason for deletion. There is no deadline. Original research is not at all the same thing as "lacking inline citations". --Dhartung | Talk 23:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — this nomination for deletion is not constructive. The subject of the article is difficult, in that there are multiple, conflicting definitions, and it has been worried over, constructively, in the past. The article is well referenced — the format of those references in no way demands the article's deletion, and such an approach is against the spirit of this project. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 14:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. The article is largely based on the references, with little original research, mostly confined to the introductory section; and it's a lot better now than it used to be a couple years ago. It needs a few footnotes and some cleanup; a couple of sections need to be expanded. Jack^(Lumber) 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave all comments after reopening below this line

Keep as per all the above. The topic is important, and if other articles deal with it also, they should be pointed towards this as a central point. Agreed, it needs improving. BrainyBabe (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The topic's obviously relevant. The complaint about sources seems a bit off, sure it isn't perfectly line-referenced, but it has sources galore, and I don't see any claims that veer wildly off the mainstream anyway (I worked in EFL and most of it's familiar). Original Research, again I doubt it. I'm willing to assume good faith that it's supported by the sources - where it gives them, they're good - and it certainly looks conventional enough. Personally, I would decimate the bit about "historical context" as being on the wrong page, and I can understand the 'start again from a clean slate' argument, but I really don't think throwing out everything is any kind of progress, nor a good way to motivate people to put in all this work again. Hence strong keep. The Zig (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable. Marlith ^T/C 16:53, 13 January 2008 (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.