Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEnglish

:{{la|SEnglish}} ([{{fullurl:SEnglish|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEnglish}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Overly long description of a controlled natural language. Dates and lack of refs suggest it is too new to be notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Though it fits in with similar length descriptions of other controlled natural languages already consolidated. Veressm (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The article seems to be referenced properly. Ergo, it's no original research and it's nothing unverifiable. Since there was a book published about it, that seems to address the notability question as well. I'm open to arguments why the project would not be notable enough, but as long as these aren't provided, I don't see a reason to delete this. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Would consider the article as 'highly descriptive' rather than 'overly long description' hence in contrast to a previous opinion, I can't see why a well explained and substantiated article can be a negative. Having followed some of the supplied links, the question of notability is further addressed by the subject matter being present at a world congress (International Federation of Automatic Control, 2008 held in Seoul). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkl199 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nominator. All the references are by the same author and very recent, which suggests self-promotion rather than notability. Presenting something at a congress doesn't make it notable; I'm just about to present something at a congress where eight thousand papers will be presented. Do we need an article on each of them? Finally, the book about it is self-published. --Itub (talk) 07:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. In my opinion this article is most worthy of being added to Wikipedia. I had a look at the book and it is "very notable" by whatever means it has been published. I am sure that a large reader community would agree with the principles described in the book and reported in the article. I think that is rather preconceived to criticize a new article entry by looking solely at the references’ year of publication. (user:txlm, 17:45, 12 August 2008 UTC)

:*Please read Wikipedia:Notability for an explanation about what is meant by "notability" here, and why self-published sources are not acceptable. --Itub (talk) 16:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

:*This comment by Itub is not precise: Wikipedia:Notability contains the sentence If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable., please see end of first paragraph.--Veressm (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

::*You are overgeneralizing that quote in my opinion, which I base on years of watching how the policies are interpreted when discussing article deletion. The emphasis should be on currently. Certainly, some topics that are considered "notable" have not had the references added yet (most articles that have not been deleted should be on notable topics, but most articles are under-referenced). But that's quite different from cases such as this one, where no reason has been provided that would led me to believe that appropriate references exist at all. --Itub (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete As it stands, this article is pure promotion - the author of the article is apparently the creator of sEnglish and also is the author of every single reference given, so there's a WP:COI and the refs are hardly third party or independent. Having said that, it's a well-written and detailed description and if the author's own bio is to be believed, he's an academic authority in the field. If any credible third-party refs at all could be found I'd change to keep. And I'd feel a lot less dubious about the article if there were no keep votes here from newly-created accounts with no other Wiki edits... Karenjc 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I am the author of the wiki, and having reread the guidelines, the article clearly satisfies Wikipedia:Notability and there is no WP:COI as the article is written in a completely neutral way and the author does not benefit in any way. Still sEnglish is so new that it will take time for independent professional publication to appear about it. Until then I intend to withdraw sEnglish as a wiki. I am including my comment here to inform the contributors who positively commented on my entry, thanks for that. I intend to delete my own wiki, thanks for all comments. --Veressm (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• In my opinion, that should not necessary be a problem. When a new movie appears, it will in all likeliness have its article on the very same day, unless there has been an article around for a while already. The fact that something is new is not a reason for deletion. As far as I am concerned, issues of notability and verifiability are addressed properly. But of course, if it is your desire to have it deleted anyway, then I will comply and change my "vote". —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 21:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks for your support, based on this I am having second thoughts and keep the wiki..., of course I agree with you that notability and verifiability are perfectly all right and it even complies with all currently written wikipedia criteria (as I commented above in response). --Veressm (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

: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.