Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mock Spanish

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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Spanish

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Strong 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 what information there IS to be found in 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 the most valuable way to spend time as an editor. 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)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am not understanding the press for deletion. The article is well sourced and there is plenty of supporting evidence not yet cited in the article, including mentions in major newspapers and scholarly articles. It’s clearly a topic in linguistics and has social relevance. Issues with tone, quality of writing, etc should be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

keep seems to be about the same idea as wonton font, incorporating cultural elements into another form of expression. Article is well-sourced, seems ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Agree with above. I think it could use more sources especially in the "The opposing perspective" section, which only has one reference. But it's a good start, and would be better with edits rather than a full deletion. The two sides should be fleshed out more to give neutrality, and the opposition not just a long summary of a single paper. I also noticed that AtlasDuane mostly hunts out articles for deletion, so that could be why he pushed for deletion while the rest of us see it as an edit issue. Just a thought :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slach11 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.