recommended procedure |
m →Tense-aspect-mood: bullet |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
::In short: (1) Use the article's talk page to achieve consensus. (2) Be specific, both on the talk page and in the article itself. [[User:Duoduoduo|Duoduoduo]] ([[User talk:Duoduoduo|talk]]) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
::In short: (1) Use the article's talk page to achieve consensus. (2) Be specific, both on the talk page and in the article itself. [[User:Duoduoduo|Duoduoduo]] ([[User talk:Duoduoduo|talk]]) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC) |
||
*As the person who closed this discussion as "Keep," I see no validity in Drew.ward's arguments to reopen the discussion. 7 participants saying to keep the article is more than enough to warrant that kind of close, and this is a more [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] DRV than one related to policy. I would endorse a speedy close of this discussion, but, as the person who closed the original discussion, I do not believe that my view would be legitimate. [[User:Logan|Logan]] <sub>[[User_talk:Logan|Talk]]</sub> <sup>[[Special:Contributions/Logan|Contributions]]</sup> 02:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:03, 1 May 2011
30 April 2011
Tense-aspect-mood
Tense-aspect-mood (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Please Reopen Nomination for Deletion.
I am an expert in the field of linguistics that this article attempts to deal with. I believe the original deletion discussion was far too short and no effort was made to get input from anyone working in the field. The arguments for keeping the article in the previous deletion nomination were based on things like number of references (not their relevance, just number), technical tone of the article, etc. This article is worded in a manner that purports that TAM is established linguistic protocol whereas it is actually merely a collection of similar yet not even agreed upon theories.Drew.ward (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was a snowball keep. What result are you hoping for here? CycloneGU (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm. This is indeed a less-than-perfect article, but I see no cause for deletion. The term is well established, with 186 hits for the exact phrase "tense-aspect-mood" in JSTOR (which unlike Google Scholar indexes only well-known peer-reviewed journals). On the other hand, it's not very good; the only reason I'm not sure I agree with the nominator about what the article is saying is that it's so vague that I'm not sure what it's saying. I encourage the nominator to edit it mercilessly, which it needs, but suggest that deletion is neither called for under our policies nor the correct way forward toward improvement. Chick Bowen 03:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- It was hardly a snowball as the nomination was only opened for a week and only 7 people commented with much of the bulk of commentary being the original author.
- You'll definitely find hits for this because systems centered around tense, aspect, and mood have been proposed by various people since the 1960's. The main problem I have with this TAM article is that there is no single "TAM". And, the authors that would writing those 186 articles don't agree on what their own use of the term is. This article reads as if there is a single system called TAM and that it's established as fact and used to analyze languages. But, all three of those are wrong. The way it's written now, it's very nearly original research as wiki normally defines it, it's just that it has the appearance of established linguistics because he's thrown a load of (not necessarily related) sources together. It would be the same as my saying "all cars run on ethanol" and writing an article saying this. I can list thousands of resources talking about cars, running, and ethanol, or even cars running on ethanol, etc. And, if you google cars run and ethanol you'll get millions of hits on google. But, it doesn't make what I've said true.
- If you guys want me to, I can rewrite this article, but It would end up much much shorter, and would be purely an academic discussion of the main keypoints of proposed TAM systems and maybe a paragraph on each of the 4 or 5 most discussed theories. It would however be very clear that it's a theoretical framework and that it's proposed not accepted. I'd also go through and remove (or at least reword) the referring links the author(s) added all over WP to the article when they originally wrote it because those mentions again, make it seem like it's established. I'm not trying to be a stickler, but as someone who teaches linguistics, I find it sad that we can't rely on wikipedia. Our students default to WP when they want to get a quick summary of something new. Unfortunately, the linguistics and grammar articles on here are so poor in quality (not so much the very advanced theoretical ling ones, but the basic ones like "what is a verb (or whatever)", that when a student quotes WP in class it's joking referred to as "WikiFAIL". This shouldn't be the case. So my criticism of this article standing as is comes not from a disagreement with its content (I know it's wrong, and most authors who have proposed TAM systems have realized they don't work also, but the idea is along the right train of thought, just not complete and thus has academic merit), but with the fact that it tries to establish TAM as a single, accepted deal.
- I honestly don't know when I'll have the time to give this article the type of rewrite it'll require but I would be glad to play editor if the original author (who seems very interested in the subject) would like to work on it. In the meantime though, the current version either needs to be removed or somehow put into a status that keeps people from mistaking it for information of encyclopedic quality.Drew.ward (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- May I suggest that you take a look at this AFD log of some recently closed AFDs and take note of the length of time most of them were open and how many participants most of them had. Unless relisted, AFDs are only suppose to run for 7 days and a great many of them have less then 7 participants. The AFD in question here was open for the prescribed length of time, had adequate participation and the result was unanimous. Endorse keep close as it is obvious that this article is not going to be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand then what the value of an AFD is if there is no mechanism for "advertising" it or if there is no effort made to bring subject matter experts into the discussion. There is no discussion whatsoever in that original AFD dealing with whether that article is correct or valid or not. Instead it's just a very brief discussion about sources and such. Saying this was unanimous and won't be deleted makes no sense as it's the same as someone posting one of those public comment notices required for zoning variances up but putting it inside a building, then saying no one was opposed to the change because no one commented. This article was "reviewed" with no mechanism in place to give it a proper review. Thus, it should be reviewed again with effort made to actively get input from people who know about the subject.Drew.ward (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you really think that the article needs to be renominated, I suggest waiting a few months and trying it. But this AfD was clear. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- How was the AFD clear? The only thing that seems clear to me is that it was nominated for deletion and then deemed a keep without a proper discussion nor any sort of due diligence. Consider the arguments:
Keep #1: "The article is well-sourced, with 28 references. The separate articles on tense, aspect, and mood are not by themselves sufficient" Keep #2: "The term is common in the lit" -- the original author Keep #3: " the choice of title seems a bit weird (I would have chosen Tense, aspect and mood) but this definitely is an established linguistic concept" -- it's not established so this is opinion. This commenter then has a discussion showing that even within the context of their comment, there's not enough agreement to support keeping it. Keep #4: " I am all in favour of articles that address issues in a connected way, rather than pretending that (say) tense, aspect, and mood can be managed each in isolation." Keep #5: "TAM certainly is "an established concept in the study of grammar", as the first ten cited references clearly attest." -- again purporting that a list of references is enough for a keep Keep #6: "interconnectedness of these three category domains is a legitimate topic even if each of the three has its own article."
None of these "keeps" deal with the content or the validity of the article. They simply support keeping it because it either provides a list of resources (without actually reading what the resources say because they aren't talking about the same things), support keeping because they like this sort of idea, or support keeping because they don't like the way tense, aspect, and mood are handled separately.
These are not adequate justifications for putting an article in an encyclopedia and especially not one worded as established fact.
Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia anyone can contribute to and edit, but when something is added that is disputed, effort needs to be made to seek input from subject matter experts. No such effort has been made here and no such input was involved in the decision to "keep" this article. Drew.ward (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- All right then. If you don't like the article as it currently is, please go find a subject matter expert to fix it up the way you see fit. Keep in mind that unsourced contributions, even from a subject matter expert, are still subject to deletion from the article. If we have an article that is well-sourced and notable, chances are you're not going to get it deleted. Also, you are the only one disputing; the consensus is there is no basis for the dispute. We operate by consensus around here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I am a subject matter expert on this sort of thing. But I also recognize that TAM systems are inherently flawed thus if I rewrite the article it won't look anything at all like it does now. It would simply be a summary of what TAMs propose and would clearly state that they're theory only and not accepted. I can do that if you'd like, but since most of the body and discussion (including examples) given in that article are flat out wrong, I'd have to delete them.
I oppose 'speedy close' because due diligence has not been done.
There was no attempt to gain expert input on this article during the first deletion review and this discussion here has been purely about the validity of that previous review, not about the validity of the article content. 6 people (one of whom is the original author) do not make a consensus when you're talking about an encyclopedia with hundreds of millions of readers and contributors.
If WP is to have any semblance of quality and reliability, a review must seek to verify and qualify content from people who specialize in it. That hasn't been done, had it been done, it certainly would have resulted in deletion. This article should be re-opened for deletion and a proper review given where due diligence is performed including soliciting specialists on time and verb systems in languages. UNtil this is done, there has really been no 'review process' beyond a tacit unpublicized discussion like the one done originally. Drew.ward (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- From WP:DRV: "The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions", as described here. If you think a relist would be appropriate, go ahead and state your reasons for it here. If however the relist would be merely for an attempt to improve the article, the article is already kept and those discussions belong on the article's talk page. If you truly think a relist could get the article deleted (after all, consensus can change), then by all means after all good-faith attempts to improve the article if you still think it not good enough for Wikipedia, then go ahead and renominate it sometime down the road. With the consensus now, I don't see a relist as being feasible, but on the other hand I don't think a single comment pointed at Wikipedia policy. My advice: try in good faith to improve the article, but a relist IMO will get nowhere. CycloneGU (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Recommend speedy close. Obviously the article is not going to be relisted for deletion, and even if it were it's not going to be deleted. I would suggest that you (Drew.ward) try to improve the article by doing the following: First, because you are proposing major changes, discuss your proposed changes in very specific terms on the talk page; try to get a consensus. Then put the changes in. That way you maximize the chances that your changes will stick. (If you just put in changes that have not been agreed to or shaped by other Wikipedians, they will just revert them.)
- In making the case for your proposed changes, be specific. Don't just say something like "I'm an expert and I know this to be garbage" or words to that effect; others who consider themselves experts (and indeed may be just as expert as you) may disagree. Don't just make blanket statements like everything in the article misstates what is in the references -- point out specific statements in the article and show why they are false representations of the alleged source. And don't confuse empirical descriptions how how tense, aspect, and/or mood are jointly handled by various languages, which is the current coverage of the article, with theoretical systems that try to explain the empirical data. (Why not go for one section on empirical data, such as is already there, and another section on theoretical attempts to explain the data?) And when you write proposed passages, remember this rule of thumb: The reader of the article should not be able to figure out the opinion of the person who inserts an edit, based on the content of the edit; if the reader can infer this, the the passage violates WP:NPOV.
- As the person who closed this discussion as "Keep," I see no validity in Drew.ward's arguments to reopen the discussion. 7 participants saying to keep the article is more than enough to warrant that kind of close, and this is a more WP:IDONTLIKEIT DRV than one related to policy. I would endorse a speedy close of this discussion, but, as the person who closed the original discussion, I do not believe that my view would be legitimate. Logan Talk Contributions 02:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)