Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific 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 delete. Perhaps redirect somewhere or recreate as a dab, but this might need more discussion. Sandstein 06:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific language

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:V & WP:NOR Rob van vee 22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Constructed language. Artw (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why just constructed language? More often it means something else; see here, here, etc. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scientific programming language per below. Artw (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to Scientific programming language. This is just the article creator's definition. I was tempted to suggest redirecting to Academic writing, but it's not quite the same thing, and that article doesn't appear to be all that great itself. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not a disambiguation page with links to Academic writing, Scientific programming language and Constructed language? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 07:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because dab pages are not for sort of "semi-synonyms", WP:partial title matches and WP:original research, respectively. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be original research or inaccurate, unless sources are cited. Scientific programming language was at this title for seven years until moved recently to be replaced by this article; this title should be redirected to that article (moved without discussion, but the new title is an improvement) or made into a disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 22:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. There are enough references to the programming meaning.[1][2] I'm changing my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How strange. True, a programmer, in professional context, can say "language" instead of "programming language", and "scientific language" instead of "scientific programming language". But this is marginal, isn't it? In most cases, "scientific language" is used for the language of science. Two links were given by me; for more, just google "scientific language". Boris Tsirelson (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I agree with Tsirel's point. Andrew D. (talk) 15:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the ideas currently floating about seem mistaken as they are not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this title. A fresh start would be better than such confusion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an article Scientific writing, and the primary meaning of "scientific language" is probably a subtopic of that. Disambiguate? Peter James (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I got somewhat puzzled: why the two articles, "Scientific writing" and "Academic writing"? Where is the boundary between these topics? Boris Tsirelson (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the difference between academia and science, some overlap but different topics; merging would result in a more complete (still unbalanced and inadequately sourced) article, but most of the academic writing article is unlikely to have much relevance to scientific writing. Peter James (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific writing is getting warm but that currently quite shallow and about the style used in journals. IMO, the primary topic here is what we find in books such as Scientific Babel: The language of science from the fall of Latin to the rise of English; The Language of Science; Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. These are concerned with much broader issues about the way that scientists communicate, both now and in the past. Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... I was naively thinking that "academic" = "scientific" :-) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A short stub that seems to be a little-used umbrella term for two topics witht heir own article. Maybe it would just be easier to put in a "see also" on constructed language and conlang. RailwayScientist (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2015 (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.