Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/How to learn a language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] How to learn a language

Has been transwikied to wikibooks, is now redundant here as it is unencyclopedic. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes. Much better suited to Wikibooks. Oska 00:48, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect it to the wWikibooks page. Bart133 01:01, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • REQUEST:Please leave a link similar to How to find a book at the 'How to' section/category, thanks.--Jondel 02:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Possible to improve rather than delete? Although the article does not seek academic justification for its generalisations, it is full of useful practical advice. Andycjp 15th Nov 2004
    • Which is unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "how to" guide. --Graham ☺ | Talk 03:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • How about the whole 'How to' series, should they all be transwikied?--Jondel 03:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • In my opinion, yes. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 11:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes. -- WOT 23:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • delete --fvw* 03:26, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
  • wikibooks, don't leave any content in the encyclopedia. May be worth external link somewhere else though. Dunc|☺ 19:00, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep , please, why this and not the other 'How to's ?

-1)Unencyclopedic? Are all the 'How to' s unencyclopedic?' I believe this article contains very useful tips for language learning.

- 2) Make the policy change, propose. Please don't single out this one article for transwiki-delete, if you are not going to transfer the other 'How to's articles to the wikibook.

Wikibook version needs update from the more recent wikipedia version:

-3)Links: Let me work on the Links for a while needs to link to wikipedia, at the wikibook, they may not connect from wuju\\to. -4)Please let me update the wikibook with the wikipedia version which is more recent. --Jondel 07:15, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete. The topic is noble, one that I personally think about nearly every day, but the essay is hopelessly POV. One can make a contrarian case against many assertions in the article. Noam Chomsky, for example, would probably throw up at the "We think in sentences". That is, the "common sense" assertions in the article rest on the foundations of wide-open questions in linguistics (see Language acquisition). As such, the article can only be a personal essay or a mish-mash of opinions. You could well follow all the advice there and wind up not learning a language at all. It would do splendidly in Wikibooks, however, which is made for this sort of thing. I highly endorse moving it there. But by having such an article in Wikipedia, we tacitly endorse that there existes an accepted way of learning a language, other than, say "learn it from your mother." -- Decumanus 07:22, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)
  • Wikibooks. If this article exists in duplicate form on Wikibooks, change the Wikipedia version to an redirect. If it doesn't exist, move it and redirect. If a different article with the same name or theme exists, merge and redirect. Etc. -Branddobbe 08:15, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article was up for deletion in May and survived (see talk page) Of all the nonsense and silly entries floating about on wikipedia, this is interesting, intelligent, has real content, and links to several highly worthwhile other articles. We can argue until we're blue in the face about whether this article is encyclopeadic or not, same as all the How-tos. (I *distinctly* remember reading cooking tips in the Encyclopedia Britannica!) Strictly speaking, this article may not belong here. But unlike many articles that are deemed worth keeping - try Agent Kyle Brody, for example, or my personal favorite inane article, California 4th Grade Mission Project (which I see has recently acquired an off-topic and highly POV rant, giving the illusion of some actual content) - this article enriches wikipedia. Why not focus on weeding out the crap, and leave good writing alone for the time being. --Woggly 11:17, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Do other encyclopaedias not have "how to" articles? I was under the impression they did. zoney ♣ talk 12:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • "This page is part of the Wikipedia How-to Series", which is fairly expansive. There can be no argument, therefore, that it's unencyclopaedic, if Wikipedia readily acknowledges that it includes this genre. As for the content - the article performs the duties called for. Keep. Architeuthis 16:56, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks or delete, whichever is deemed appropriate. -- WOT 23:19, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. Howtos should be on Wikibooks. --Improv 05:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, since it's been transwikied. Niteowlneils 21:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons stated above. — mark ✎ 14:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)