Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mock Spanish

Mock Spanish

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Mock Spanish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Argumentative essay that doesn't attempt to explain it's topic neutrally, WP:TNT AtlasDuane (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Bilateral relations. AtlasDuane (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I see references coming from different sources, so I don't see a problem with the topic's neutrality. I'm more worried however about the essay part, since most of its content seems to come from a primary source and derivative works. Irecorsan (talk) 09:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up as necessary. This is a notable topic within the fields of (socio)linguistics and anthropology. As Irecorsan notes, it currently cites sources from several different authors. There is usable material here, including in the edit history. Cnilep (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. A quick perusal on Google Scholar comes back with a large number of hits that seem to be discussing this as a distinct phenomenon, referring back to Hill (I think), and not just using the phrase generically. Nevertheless, I'm a little squeamish about the WP:FRINGE aspects and neutrality of this. If there are no sources critical of such a new idea and Hill's claims specifically, it might be difficult to write a good article about. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

KEEP I don’t know what may have changed in the guidelines since I was an active editor, but I don’t understand why a fairly content-rich and well-sourced article should ever be nominated for deletion rather than simply cleaned up. Wikipedia is a source of information, and any information that cites valid secondary sources should virtually always be kept. Tone and quality issues should always be handled by editing. If there is some information that comes from a primary source, then the first remedy (in most cases), I think would be to look for secondary sources for the same content. If secondary sources are not found, then the portions of the article that rely entirely on primary sources should be deleted until such time as secondary sources are found. If sodoing renders the article empty or stubbed, then it should be filled out with information from secondary sources. Only after trying to fix the article’s problems should an article ever be nominated for deletion. Poor editing is solved by better editing, deletion is the lazy editor’s fix; if you have the time to nominate then you have the time to edit, and that is what should spend your time doing. Wikipedia becomes more valuable through building, and deletion should always be a last resort. Jumping to deletion without first doing what you can to improve the content and presentation is, to my mind, at least as destructive as vandalism in that it not only reduces the value of the wiki as a resource, but also helps to create the widespread perception that our editors are some kind of clique who put gatekeeping above content creation, and it has led to a lot of editors—myself included—feeling that the task of making useful information available to a wider audience has been abandoned. Which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as more and more inclusionists leave in frustration at their work being devalued, leaving the ever-growing proportion of deletionists to drive the culture of the wiki towards a “less is more” mindset. But in reality, when it comes to information sharing, less is simply less. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)