| Revision as of 09:45, 28 October 2007 editEluchil404 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,398 edits →Langmaker: Comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:08, 29 October 2007 edit undoKmweber (talk | contribs)6,865 edits →Langmaker: keep, of courseNext edit → | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| *'''Keep''' for reasons Wiwaxia gave. And I'm sick of Wikipedians extending the definition of "original research" to cover material taken from primary sources. Let's be honest here: ''nobody'' writes plot summaries from secondary sources. The synopses of the Harry Potter books in the Harry Potter articles (e.g. '']'') came from people reading the books and then writing the articles, not from people reading second-hand synopses of Cliff's Notes on Rowling's work and then writing the article. Granted, the analyses of the sociological significance of Harry Potter do come from secondary sources, but these articles still contain what a lot of people are calling OR. Do people write the Misplaced Pages articles on episodes of TV shows like The Simpsons by reading synopses of the episodes in independent, reliable sources and then writing the articles, or do they watch the shows themselves and then write them from memory? If the people at Misplaced Pages want to expand the definition of original research, we'll have to rework a lot of what we've allowed to stay here for years. ] 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' for reasons Wiwaxia gave. And I'm sick of Wikipedians extending the definition of "original research" to cover material taken from primary sources. Let's be honest here: ''nobody'' writes plot summaries from secondary sources. The synopses of the Harry Potter books in the Harry Potter articles (e.g. '']'') came from people reading the books and then writing the articles, not from people reading second-hand synopses of Cliff's Notes on Rowling's work and then writing the article. Granted, the analyses of the sociological significance of Harry Potter do come from secondary sources, but these articles still contain what a lot of people are calling OR. Do people write the Misplaced Pages articles on episodes of TV shows like The Simpsons by reading synopses of the episodes in independent, reliable sources and then writing the articles, or do they watch the shows themselves and then write them from memory? If the people at Misplaced Pages want to expand the definition of original research, we'll have to rework a lot of what we've allowed to stay here for years. ] 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **While claims of OR are sumtimes thrown around too readily, I don't see anyone doing that here. Independent sources are required for ] which is generally viewed as a separate requirement. Thus if a topic has only primary sources it should be deleted, but an article that relies heavily on them can stand as long as there are also a few secondary sources extant. ] 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | **While claims of OR are sumtimes thrown around too readily, I don't see anyone doing that here. Independent sources are required for ] which is generally viewed as a separate requirement. Thus if a topic has only primary sources it should be deleted, but an article that relies heavily on them can stand as long as there are also a few secondary sources extant. ] 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' — It exists, doesn't it? ] ('''<span style="background-color: white; color: blue">Go</span> <span style="background-color: blue; color: white">Colts!</span>''') 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:08, 29 October 2007
Langmaker
Borderline A7 but looks like another admin had already seen this and left it alone. Article doesn't demonstrate any notability for this website and lacks reliable sources. Content can therefore be considered original research Spartaz 14:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as not-notable and lacking independent references, failing WP:WEB. Dylan 15:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. /Blaxthos 15:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per the above comments. --Evb-wiki 16:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, borderline notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Question. Hi Can you help us with this debate by explaining why you think this site is borderline notable? Spartaz 18:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB.Keep - it does seem to be notable (e.g. ), but article needs improving. - Snigbrook 01:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)- Comment that's the same article as one of the links below, but there are others e.g. . Snigbrook 15:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB, no notability claimed in article. Probably should have been a speedy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep That probably should be a complete rewrite. The website provides what is arguably the most comprehensive listing and description of conlangs available. jonathon 22:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The website is not merely original and pioneer in its field, but important as part of an online community.--Pedro Aguiar 00:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as non notable website. I think the applicable criterion is CSD A7? Burntsauce 16:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm sure it's a useful site for people who use it, but that doesn't make it notable. Crazysuit 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong keep. Langmaker is a central hub for conlanging recognized across all of the conlanging community. It's mentioned in the books Exploring Language Change by Ishtla Singh and Mari Jones and Waveforms Politics: Equilibrium Pattern Volume 4 by Gary Gibson, and is reviewed in the 2006 edition of Que's Official Internet Yellow Pages. The page is known to many Wikipedians here; as a matter of fact we frequently reference on Langmaker in conlang deletion debates, and the other people know instantly what we're talking about. How many times have we seen in a deletion debate on a non-notable conlang that the "only google hit is Langmaker.com" or "only ghits are langmaker.com and Misplaced Pages mirrors"? The LA Times article In Their Own Words -- Literally mentions it and its conlangs from `Ayvárith to Zyem. And as a final kicker, there was a Misplaced Pages article at Langmaker that was prodded and deleted, and this new one sprang up written by a different author. If two different people, neither of whom appear to be Jeffrey Henning, independently start Misplaced Pages articles on Langmaker.com, that says something about its notability. Wiwaxia 03:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Of course it's notable! Now I can do two things: either rephrase what was already said by Wiwaxia or just admit that I couldn't have put it better. I'll go for the latter solution, since I'm a bit in a hurry. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete' unless proper sourcing is added to the article. As it stands it's notability is not verifiable from the article. Eluchil404 22:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons Wiwaxia gave. And I'm sick of Wikipedians extending the definition of "original research" to cover material taken from primary sources. Let's be honest here: nobody writes plot summaries from secondary sources. The synopses of the Harry Potter books in the Harry Potter articles (e.g. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) came from people reading the books and then writing the articles, not from people reading second-hand synopses of Cliff's Notes on Rowling's work and then writing the article. Granted, the analyses of the sociological significance of Harry Potter do come from secondary sources, but these articles still contain what a lot of people are calling OR. Do people write the Misplaced Pages articles on episodes of TV shows like The Simpsons by reading synopses of the episodes in independent, reliable sources and then writing the articles, or do they watch the shows themselves and then write them from memory? If the people at Misplaced Pages want to expand the definition of original research, we'll have to rework a lot of what we've allowed to stay here for years. Zanzibar Buck-Buck McPhate 19:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- While claims of OR are sumtimes thrown around too readily, I don't see anyone doing that here. Independent sources are required for notability which is generally viewed as a separate requirement. Thus if a topic has only primary sources it should be deleted, but an article that relies heavily on them can stand as long as there are also a few secondary sources extant. Eluchil404 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)