Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Language Monitor (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

[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)

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [1], [2] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [3]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have the same (2 out of 3) authors. If the organization still existed we could see if these folks "happen" to be directly associated with it. Also, the second one is really poor in content - reads like an undergraduate paper, really. I'm not willing to see these as significant. Lamona (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:38, 29 November 2024 (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.