Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 30

Tense-aspect-mood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please Reopen Nomination for Deletion.

I am an expert in the field of linguistics that this article attempts to deal with. I believe the original deletion discussion was far too short and no effort was made to get input from anyone working in the field. The arguments for keeping the article in the previous deletion nomination were based on things like number of references (not their relevance, just number), technical tone of the article, etc. This article is worded in a manner that purports that TAM is established linguistic protocol whereas it is actually merely a collection of similar yet not even agreed upon theories.Drew.ward (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a snowball keep. What result are you hoping for here? CycloneGU (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. This is indeed a less-than-perfect article, but I see no cause for deletion. The term is well established, with 186 hits for the exact phrase "tense-aspect-mood" in JSTOR (which unlike Google Scholar indexes only well-known peer-reviewed journals). On the other hand, it's not very good; the only reason I'm not sure I agree with the nominator about what the article is saying is that it's so vague that I'm not sure what it's saying. I encourage the nominator to edit it mercilessly, which it needs, but suggest that deletion is neither called for under our policies nor the correct way forward toward improvement. Chick Bowen 03:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It was hardly a snowball as the nomination was only opened for a week and only 7 people commented with much of the bulk of commentary being the original author.
• You'll definitely find hits for this because systems centered around tense, aspect, and mood have been proposed by various people since the 1960's. The main problem I have with this TAM article is that there is no single "TAM". And, the authors that would writing those 186 articles don't agree on what their own use of the term is. This article reads as if there is a single system called TAM and that it's established as fact and used to analyze languages. But, all three of those are wrong. The way it's written now, it's very nearly original research as wiki normally defines it, it's just that it has the appearance of established linguistics because he's thrown a load of (not necessarily related) sources together. It would be the same as my saying "all cars run on ethanol" and writing an article saying this. I can list thousands of resources talking about cars, running, and ethanol, or even cars running on ethanol, etc. And, if you google cars run and ethanol you'll get millions of hits on google. But, it doesn't make what I've said true.
• If you guys want me to, I can rewrite this article, but It would end up much much shorter, and would be purely an academic discussion of the main keypoints of proposed TAM systems and maybe a paragraph on each of the 4 or 5 most discussed theories. It would however be very clear that it's a theoretical framework and that it's proposed not accepted. I'd also go through and remove (or at least reword) the referring links the author(s) added all over WP to the article when they originally wrote it because those mentions again, make it seem like it's established. I'm not trying to be a stickler, but as someone who teaches linguistics, I find it sad that we can't rely on wikipedia. Our students default to WP when they want to get a quick summary of something new. Unfortunately, the linguistics and grammar articles on here are so poor in quality (not so much the very advanced theoretical ling ones, but the basic ones like "what is a verb (or whatever)", that when a student quotes WP in class it's joking referred to as "WikiFAIL". This shouldn't be the case. So my criticism of this article standing as is comes not from a disagreement with its content (I know it's wrong, and most authors who have proposed TAM systems have realized they don't work also, but the idea is along the right train of thought, just not complete and thus has academic merit), but with the fact that it tries to establish TAM as a single, accepted deal.
• I honestly don't know when I'll have the time to give this article the type of rewrite it'll require but I would be glad to play editor if the original author (who seems very interested in the subject) would like to work on it. In the meantime though, the current version either needs to be removed or somehow put into a status that keeps people from mistaking it for information of encyclopedic quality.Drew.ward (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• May I suggest that you take a look at this AFD log of some recently closed AFDs and take note of the length of time most of them were open and how many participants most of them had. Unless relisted, AFDs are only suppose to run for 7 days and a great many of them have less then 7 participants. The AFD in question here was open for the prescribed length of time, had adequate participation and the result was unanimous. Endorse keep close as it is obvious that this article is not going to be deleted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand then what the value of an AFD is if there is no mechanism for "advertising" it or if there is no effort made to bring subject matter experts into the discussion. There is no discussion whatsoever in that original AFD dealing with whether that article is correct or valid or not. Instead it's just a very brief discussion about sources and such. Saying this was unanimous and won't be deleted makes no sense as it's the same as someone posting one of those public comment notices required for zoning variances up but putting it inside a building, then saying no one was opposed to the change because no one commented. This article was "reviewed" with no mechanism in place to give it a proper review. Thus, it should be reviewed again with effort made to actively get input from people who know about the subject.Drew.ward (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you really think that the article needs to be renominated, I suggest waiting a few months and trying it. But this AfD was clear. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• How was the AFD clear? The only thing that seems clear to me is that it was nominated for deletion and then deemed a keep without a proper discussion nor any sort of due diligence. Consider the arguments:

Keep #1: "The article is well-sourced, with 28 references. The separate articles on tense, aspect, and mood are not by themselves sufficient" Keep #2: "The term is common in the lit" -- the original author Keep #3: " the choice of title seems a bit weird (I would have chosen Tense, aspect and mood) but this definitely is an established linguistic concept" -- it's not established so this is opinion. This commenter then has a discussion showing that even within the context of their comment, there's not enough agreement to support keeping it. Keep #4: " I am all in favour of articles that address issues in a connected way, rather than pretending that (say) tense, aspect, and mood can be managed each in isolation." Keep #5: "TAM certainly is "an established concept in the study of grammar", as the first ten cited references clearly attest." -- again purporting that a list of references is enough for a keep Keep #6: "interconnectedness of these three category domains is a legitimate topic even if each of the three has its own article."

None of these "keeps" deal with the content or the validity of the article. They simply support keeping it because it either provides a list of resources (without actually reading what the resources say because they aren't talking about the same things), support keeping because they like this sort of idea, or support keeping because they don't like the way tense, aspect, and mood are handled separately.

These are not adequate justifications for putting an article in an encyclopedia and especially not one worded as established fact.

Wikipedia may be the encyclopedia anyone can contribute to and edit, but when something is added that is disputed, effort needs to be made to seek input from subject matter experts. No such effort has been made here and no such input was involved in the decision to "keep" this article. Drew.ward (talk) 17:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. If you don't like the article as it currently is, please go find a subject matter expert to fix it up the way you see fit. Keep in mind that unsourced contributions, even from a subject matter expert, are still subject to deletion from the article. If we have an article that is well-sourced and notable, chances are you're not going to get it deleted. Also, you are the only one disputing; the consensus is there is no basis for the dispute. We operate by consensus around here. CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend speedy close CycloneGU (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose speedy close Drew.ward (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Your opinion regarding a speedy close is moot because you started the review here. Naturally, you don't want a speedy close, you prefer to waste our time trying to argue why an article that has a snow consensus to keep should in fact be deleted. CycloneGU (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a subject matter expert on this sort of thing. But I also recognize that TAM systems are inherently flawed thus if I rewrite the article it won't look anything at all like it does now. It would simply be a summary of what TAMs propose and would clearly state that they're theory only and not accepted. I can do that if you'd like, but since most of the body and discussion (including examples) given in that article are flat out wrong, I'd have to delete them.

I oppose 'speedy close' because due diligence has not been done.

There was no attempt to gain expert input on this article during the first deletion review and this discussion here has been purely about the validity of that previous review, not about the validity of the article content. 6 people (one of whom is the original author) do not make a consensus when you're talking about an encyclopedia with hundreds of millions of readers and contributors.

If WP is to have any semblance of quality and reliability, a review must seek to verify and qualify content from people who specialize in it. That hasn't been done, had it been done, it certainly would have resulted in deletion. This article should be re-opened for deletion and a proper review given where due diligence is performed including soliciting specialists on time and verb systems in languages. UNtil this is done, there has really been no 'review process' beyond a tacit unpublicized discussion like the one done originally. Drew.ward (talk) 18:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DRV: "The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions", as described here. If you think a relist would be appropriate, go ahead and state your reasons for it here. If however the relist would be merely for an attempt to improve the article, the article is already kept and those discussions belong on the article's talk page. If you truly think a relist could get the article deleted (after all, consensus can change), then by all means after all good-faith attempts to improve the article if you still think it not good enough for Wikipedia, then go ahead and renominate it sometime down the road. With the consensus now, I don't see a relist as being feasible, but on the other hand I don't think a single comment pointed at Wikipedia policy. My advice: try in good faith to improve the article, but a relist IMO will get nowhere. CycloneGU (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend speedy close. Obviously the article is not going to be relisted for deletion, and even if it were it's not going to be deleted. I would suggest that you (Drew.ward) try to improve the article by doing the following: First, because you are proposing major changes, discuss your proposed changes in very specific terms on the talk page; try to get a consensus. Then put the changes in. That way you maximize the chances that your changes will stick. (If you just put in changes that have not been agreed to or shaped by other Wikipedians, they will just revert them.)

In making the case for your proposed changes, be specific. Don't just say something like "I'm an expert and I know this to be garbage" or words to that effect; others who consider themselves experts (and indeed may be just as expert as you) may disagree. Don't just make blanket statements like everything in the article misstates what is in the references -- point out specific statements in the article and show why they are false representations of the alleged source. And don't confuse empirical descriptions how how tense, aspect, and/or mood are jointly handled by various languages, which is the current coverage of the article, with theoretical systems that try to explain the empirical data. (Why not go for one section on empirical data, such as is already there, and another section on theoretical attempts to explain the data?) And when you write proposed passages, remember this rule of thumb: The reader of the article should not be able to figure out the opinion of the person who inserts an edit, based on the content of the edit; if the reader can infer this, the the passage violates WP:NPOV.

In short: (1) Use the article's talk page to achieve consensus. (2) Be specific, both on the talk page and in the article itself. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As the person who closed this discussion as "Keep," I see no validity in Drew.ward's arguments to reopen the discussion. 7 participants saying to keep the article is more than enough to warrant that kind of close, and this is a more WP:IDONTLIKEIT DRV than one related to policy. I would endorse a speedy close of this discussion, but, as the person who closed the original discussion, I do not believe that my view would be legitimate. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure, noting that there are indeed opportunities for misuse of references that might not be picked up in an AfD... but DRV is not the right place to bring such issues. Instead, unsupported statements or those that conflict with their sourcing should be edited out appropriately and unreliable sources impeached and removed, through the normal editing and dispute resolution processes rather than outright deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse keep closure (as one of the original keep voters). Evidently valid consensus. I note that the nominator's argument that "no effort was made to get input from anyone working in the field" doesn't quite stand up – while it is true that no systematic effort of that sort seems to have been made, at least two voters (kwami and myself) do in fact have substantial academic expertise in the field. It is true that the article has some scope for improvement, but it's a competent enough start and whatever problems there may be are far below the threshold that would require emergency deletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist article for deletion. I was the editor who listed the article for deletion, and I still think it should be. The discussion did not get a large involvement of editors and I think that if it had been the result could have been different. There are several problems with the article. The main one is that the sources for the article do not prove that "tense-aspect-mood" is a widely accepted concept in linguistics. For example, some of the titles only include tense and aspect. This problem could be resolved by renaming the article to "Tense, aspect and mood". Another problem is that the article overlaps substantially with English modal verb, English verbs and English grammar. I agree with what drew.ward has said and think the article could be reformed to discuss proposed theories on this subject. Count Truthstein (talk) 14:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, we just have to accept that consensus isn't what we agree with, Count. Given how clear the consensus was at the AfD, and how clearly it's shaping up here, a relist without some serious cleanup efforts first isn't likely to go anywhere, especially not soon. If you still must nominate it again, wait a year or two first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say I don't understand how you guys keep calling this a review or a consensus. There was never any sort of investigation as to whether the information in this article is valid or not (has anyone here actually read those sources?). And this discussion here has been nothing but a defense of the standard practice without addressing the fact that no linguistic research has been involved in the decision to keep or delete this article. The standing AFD procedure has failed in regard to this article (and I'm guessing it does for many things that require specialty knowledge). If there's to be any semblance of quality and reliability in Wikipedia, reviews must actually attempt to validate an article within the context of the article's subject matter, not simply by the consensus of a few people who just happened to stumble upon it at the right time and who may or may not have the slightest knowledge of the subject.Drew.ward (talk) 22:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Drew.ward asks "has anyone here actually read those sources?" Yes, I have read the great majority of them cover to cover. And as for the comment "who may or may not have the slightest knowledge of the subject", I assure you that I have substantial knowledge of the subject. So do some of the other people in this discussion.

Do you understand the Wikipedia rule that even if you don't like a topic (theory, etc.), if it's out there then there can be a Wikipedia article about it? For example, you may think that one political party, religion, physics theory, linguistic theory, etc. is a bunch of nonsense; but if it is out there, there should be a Wikipedia article about it. Are you asserting, contrary to your comments on the talk page, that TAM is not out there? Duoduoduo (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Duoduoduo, I'm simply asserting that a review for deletion or not of a linguistics article needs to be centered around linguistics which this one has not. It should be an investigation into the validity of the assertions in the article and not simply a discussion about the way wikipedia works. I have not claimed that the people commenting on this particular article or this followup discussion are or are not subject matter expert, but that no mechanism has been pushed to make sure that subject matter experts are involved in such a review. I too have read most of those sources. I don't agree that that they support the assertions of that article but that's not even what I'm asking about here. I just don't think it's too much to ask that a review of an article dealing with a specific field or specialty should actively seek input and investigation with and by professionals within that field.Drew.ward (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Drew, there is no formal review process. Anywhere on Wikipedia. There's absolutely no reason why there should be one here, when the lack works (at least as well as anything else) in basically every other case. I'd suggest dropping that particular line of inquiry, it seems to stem from your ideas of how Wikipedia should work not meshing with how Wikipedia works.
• Now, the consensus at the AfD was obvious, to basically everyone except you. Simply put, I look at it and ask, "Would any other close be reasonable?" And when I find the answer as "No, no other close would even come close to being reasonable," we have consensus. Ask yourself the same, would it be reasonable to close that AfD in any way other than keep? lifebaka++ 01:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Count Truthstein says "I ... think the article could be reformed...." Therefore, it should not be relisted for deletion. Moreover, Drew.ward says on the article's talk page "this article is about a group of related theoretical systems which various people have proposed." Thus there should be a Wikipedia article about it, and it should not be relisted for deletion. Not liking the topic of an article is not a reason to relist for deletion. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Try to rewrite. The delete arguent is basically an argument that the content should be other than it is. But that is not an argument for deletion, unless it can be shown there is no possible article that could correctly have that subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]