Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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, but the pointy name change should probably be undone. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites

[edit]
List of languages by number of native speakers according to two websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Which 2 websites? Perhaps it may not warrant deletion, but boy does this one need help! WuhWuzDat 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. The article needs renaming to drop 'according to two websites'. The topic is worthy so at that point it becomes one of many poorly written but useful articles. I'm assuming a similar article doesn't coexist with this one. Szzuk (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An interesting topic. A few sites listed as references, but not which are the eponymous two. A problem comes in definition. Is a native speaker solely one resident in his/her native country, or are native speakers resident elsewhere counted? How about languages that are 'banned' in certain countries? Peridon (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The two websites of the title are Encarta and SIL Ethnologue. A native speaker is one who speaks the language from when a very young age; from when they first start to speak. It has nothing to do with where people are living. Munci (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article was recently(3/01/10) renamed (+ 'according to two websites') by ماني , because the majority of sources are indeed two websites (ethnologue and encarta), the ranking itself is only based on ethnologue data, there are obvious issues with ethnologue (according to them there were half as many native french speakers in 2005 than 2000), and encarta is partially based on ethnologue. We are meant to use secondary sources, and secondary sources confirm primary sources. In this case, primary sources cannot be found. There are some issues as well over the definition of "native speaker", "second language native speaker" and the validity of the data presented in this regard by non-ethnologue/encarta references. On top of this comes also the fact that accurate data is difficult to find for that type of article, (for us, for ethnologue, for the UN, and everyone else) and this article may never reach an acceptable quality. It would be more interesting and doable to have a list of languages according to the estimated number of fluent speakers, and give a 'homemade' wikipedia range (low-estimate/high-estimate) based on quality, varied sources like we do on other articles, instead of copying dodgy data.Ren ✉ 22:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —cjllw ʘ TALK 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Comment: On 3 January, this page was moved from List of languages by number of native speakers, first to List of languages by number of native speakers according to two sites and then to its current name. This was apparently a pointy way of critiquing the sources. (Note this discussion.) The topic is, I think, notable and the page should be kept, but at the old name. Cnilep (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, undo pointy rename, and take angst about quality of sources (back) to the talkpage. — ækTalk 02:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • yes, keep at old name. This is a topic that even your almanac will cover, so it's definitely something to keep.
  • comment the problem with compiling data on our own is that we'll be comparing estimates based on disparate definitions of what a native speaker is, and disparate methods on how to count them. Of course, Ethnologue does the same. This debate is long-standing, and I doubt there's any satisfactory solution. Best IMO to make it abundantly clear in the intro that the data is dodgey, and there's nothing we can do about it. kwami (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I agree, however statistics that do not come with a reference of the statistical tool used, or an explanation, are absolutely worthless. That's ethnologue and encarta. By finding our own data, while it would be difficult to make a comparison of languages, we can still make a list (as that's what we should be doing anyway) that also tells how the data was gathered.Ren ✉ 18:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article contains useful information. The fact that it was moved is probably why it is nominated for deletion. Revert to old name since the "two websites" part of the article title is inappropriate --NerdyScienceDude :) (click here to talk to me) 03:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split if kept. The article is too long as it is and if it would ever be complete, it would be much longer. I suggest splitting either at the 1,000,000 or the 100,000 mark. Munci (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This issue should be raised at the article's talk page; AfD can do nothing about it. — ækTalk 22:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe it needs all the other revisions all the other editors mentioned, but it contains interesting information that might be hard to find if it isn't in the Wikipedia. --Eldin raigmore (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep at the original title. The article has issues, but those aren't sufficient to warrant deletion. Discuss the quality of the sources at the talkpage. Bart133 t c @ 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split and Rename Useful info but lots work needs to be done. A separate article for Ethnologue's rankings and data and a separate article for Encarta's rankings and data as this is the main content of the article. One article called List of languages by native speakers (Ethnologue) or expand Ethnologue list of most spoken languages and another List of languages by native speakers (Encarta) while adding these links to main article either through the "see also" section or as a sub-article. From the suggestion of the talk page the current article can be restructured to include a range rather than raw data since sources conflict and editors have problems with the numbers. The article is long and the current ranking system isn't very good (ranking by mean average of Encarta's and Ethnologue's estimate) and needs some major restructuring if we were to keep both figures in one article. However this doesn't seem like the best idea to keep the article in its current state as little or no improvement has been done to article for a year. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Why is a deletion discussion being allowed to continue when even the person who opened the AfD is not willing to say flatly that the article should be deleted? "Perhaps it may not warrant deletion, but boy does this one need help!" is what the opener said. This discussion should be closed immediately, with an unconditional Keep as the result; any renaming or other changes should be dealt with through procedures other than an AfD. If current procedures don't allow this, then they need to be changed so that they do.

    More generally, the AfD process needs to be limited severely, or even abolished entirely. Under present circumstances, article deletion - and the expenditure of effort to preserve articles from deletion - are seriously impairing the usefulness of Wikipedia. All too often, articles that I seek out for information turn out to be redlinked (sometimes even WP:SALTed), or in the middle of a deletion debate (as here).

    --Neuromath (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is in complete shambles, and no viable solution has been offered. While I can see how this kind of list is useful (that's how I ended up here in the first place), its quality is below that of primary school research. Ren ✉ 03:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although the article is in bad shape, it could be easily cleaned up. Afterall, essential information is contained in the article. --NerdyScienceDude :) (click here to talk to me) 03:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuttal The present state of the article is not relevant to a deletion debate unless there is reason to believe that it cannot be improved, and those arguing for an unconditional keep do not need to offer solutions to any problems that may exist -- they only need to rebut arguments, if any are given, that the problems cannot ever be solved. Please reread WP:Deletion, especially the section WP:ATD (Alternatives to Deletion). Wikipedia's current deletion policies are irrational enough without misinterpreting them to put the burden of proof on those who wish to keep an article.

    Personally, I would be far more willing to expend efforts trying to find solutions to problems with an article if I knew that the article itself, at least (as opposed to my specific contributions to it), could be protected forever from deletion. Every unjustified AfD, even if it fails, is a slap in the face to every non-insider who would like to contribute to Wikipedia.

    --Neuromath (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Counter rebuttal "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"
"Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader."
Then there's also the fact that this list mostly relies on one known-to-be-unreliable source(ethnologue), the other major reference, encarta, is partially based on ethnologue. On top of that, these are tertiary sources. And on top of that, there's the npov issue. Basically, it's in breach of many rules and guidelines. After discussion on the talk page and now here, I have come to the conclusion that this article cannot be repaired. If the wikiproject can come up with a plan to rescue it, then that's great, but apparently it's not happening.Ren ✉ 02:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these assertions offer any support for your conclusion that "this article cannot be repaired"; they are all critiques of the past and present history of the article, and do not give any reasons why we should assume that any of the problems are unfixable. Incidentally, have you actually reread WP:Deletion as requested? --Neuromath (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. Where do you think I got the quote from? The reason why I believe the article is not repairable is because the bad references and associated data make up 99% of it. I find that kind of article useful... But so far it represents more of a threat than a treat to the knowledge-thirsty reader. If you can prove me wrong, please do so, and I'll even help you in improving this article. I have already offered various solutions, all requiring either split or major revamp, but unfortunately were discarded or went unnoticed, with editors' energy being spent on 'frivolous' things.Ren ✉ 05:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can empathize with your frustration at having constructive suggestions for change rejected, but that isn't a reason to propose deletion of the article in question. Deletion would preclude further improvement, while an existing article - even one with serious flaws - allows other editors to keep on trying. You could also adopt the {{sofixit}} solution - write your own version of the article, incorporating the improvements you had proposed, and simply replace the existing article with your version. If the other editors object, you can then point out the fearful deficiencies of the prior version, and that argument will then be more cogent than it is in the present context of a deletion debate. ---Neuromath (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with that is I would expect a lot of resistance, and most importantly I can't possibly pull that one off (on my own). This article is enormous, And I can only read two languages fluently. Some of the 'good' data is going to be impossible for me to harvest (you know, from census data lost on a website with an obscure tld)... Although I could look into having some kind of transwiki cooperation.Ren ✉ 13:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "According to two websites" is odd, especially when the lead mentions only SIL Ethnologue. Brand[t] 13:17, 12 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers_according_to_two_websites&oldid=1138014189"