Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Describing language

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 speedily deleted as copyright infringement, another text lifted from The Practice of English Language Teaching by Jeremy Harmer. There was a reason why it seemed to read fairly well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Describing language

OR or advertising essay, same issues as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The world of English. Sandstein 05:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads as original research. --Oscarthecat (talk) 06:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research and/or essay. JIP | Talk 06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recognize that this is a new contributor, and we want to welcome you to Wikipedia. There are lots of policies that govern the content of articles, and I'm not sure that this page could be changed to fit the format. To explain the statements above, "original research" means making an article out of one's own observations, rather than reporting on the observations of others. It is one thing to say "Jeremy Harmer cites, as an example..." and another to say, "For example...". In addition, encyclopedic style is to be used rather than essay style. Although essays can be more colorful than a straight facts, the object is to write for a reader consulting a reference book. The writing style can be fixed, but I feel that the topic (describing language) is still too broad to be covered usefully. Mandsford (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or at least userfy for the moment. The content of this page is already superior to what we have now at spoken language. The fact that this text is English centered is not a serious flaw; you'd expect the English Wikipedia to use English examples. There's the germ of a good article about linguistic competence and performance, and the contrasting communication strategies of spoken versus written language here. Nor is this strictly unreferenced; the text mentions authors and literature. I'd be happy to scratch the current spoken language article and replace it with a version of this text, but I'm not sure if that would raise WP:GFDL issues. At any rate, this title probably ought to redirect to descriptive linguistics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contents of The world of English, an article created by the same editor, were found to be a copyvio of [1]. Could somebody check whether this article is a copyvio too (unless the editor is Jeremy Harmer, in which case it is patent OR)? I don't seem to have the correct Flash player to view that content. Sandstein 14:14, 2 June 2009 (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.