Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esperanto and Ido compared

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 05:41Z

[edit] Esperanto and Ido compared

Esperanto_and_Ido_compared (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)�-- (View AfD)

Reason for proposed deletion: original research. Nov ialiste 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - unsourced original research. MER-C 13:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom: I hope we don't get articles comparing any two languages, no matter if they are related or unrelated. The paragraph in Ido seems more than sufficient for the subject. Fram 15:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Fram. ~ EdBoy[p]\[m]/[c] 16:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and reference more carefully. The Delegation_for_the_Adoption_of_an_International_Auxiliary_Language was one of the most important developments in the history of AILS. The end result "Ido" (= offspring in Esperanto) and its similarities and differences relative to Esperanto are of great importance in the area of International Auxiliary Languages even today: to such an extent that many an Esperantist would dearly love all references to Ido and comparisons with Esperanto to be obliterated. I therefore suggest that deletion of this article would be partisan. Nov ialiste 17:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You have nominated the article for deletion, and are now suggesting to keep it, with everyone else suggesting to delete it (so you can hardly have changed your mind based on what is said in this AfD). This seems suspiciously like you are trying to make a WP:POINT, which is heavily frowned upon. Fram 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I found the article inadequately referenced which is why I made the nomination. The sources are not clearly referenced in my opinion. I hope its sources will be specified more clearly and then deletion unnecessary. The genesis of Ido from Esperanto has been the object of scholarly study by the philosopher Couturat as well as linguists. I suspect that the article may in some places be a bit OR, but that could be cleaned up by sticking more closely to original sources. Nov ialiste 22:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not an explanation of why you changed your mind. Please refrain from making WP:POINT AfD nominations. Fram 05:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is original research. If indeed the break between Ido and Esperanto is significant, it might be covered under Delegation for the Adoption of an International Auxiliary Language, with more emphasis on why some believed a new international auxiliary language was necessary, based on sources, rather than an original analysis of the differences between the languages. Heimstern Läufer 19:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research. Heimstern Laufer's point above is well-made. --SunStar Nettalk 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the strangely titled article is a product of Wikipedia:Summary style, derived from the featured article Ido. These two languages are really comparable, were often compared (i.e. no WP:OR) and their comparison is useful in order to understand the development of constructed languages around 1900. - On the other side this AfD looks really like a WP:POINT, probably related with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido and Novial compared. But we should not punish otherwise reasonable articles for it...--Ioannes Pragensis 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ioannes. OR is usually a cleanup issue, I don't think it has been proven that the subject is inherently OR. hateless 22:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia has several articles comparing auxiliary languages – Ido and Interlingua, Interlingua and Esperanto, and so on. Comparison in itself doesn't make an article original research. A few points in the article are questionable at best. Sidney Culbert’s figure of 1.6 million Esperanto speakers is certainly not the “most reliable estimate.” Culbert provided too little information to evaluate the accuracy of this figure, and even if it was once accurate, it is outdated now. But these details can be addressed without deleting.
  • Keep.*
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.