Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spell-checking other languages

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. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spell-checking other languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is basically a review of the difficulties of spell checkers of non-English languages. It's very unencyclopedic and it violates the idea that Wikipedia is not a critical guide or a place for personal essays. It's also very POV. Just not a suitable Wikipedia article. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki? Clearly not an encyclopedic article, but it would be a pity to lose it. Would it fit somewhere else like Wikibooks, perhaps? (Even then, it would have to be heavily revised. For example, the claim that "house" in German means different things depending on the used gender is simply not true.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The page reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia. It also appears to be original research: "In this article some language spell checkers are tested and their difficulties defined." I'm leaning toward deletion. Cnilep (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Student essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It is such a pity, but delete. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that this person has worked very much to create this article, so what about just transfer this to another article where it fits better as complemnetary information. I think that spell checking page there would have place as there is a part with the same title.--88.15.217.36 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Merger into spell-checking or userfication may be appropriate actions for the closing sysop. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well-written, but I've looked through this and I conclude that most of this is not actually about spell-checking. It's a very good article about the grammatical structure of the various languages-- English, Italian, French, Spanish and Basque-- and each of these would be a good addition to the individual articles about those languages. I don't want to drive away a new editor who has much to contibute, but I see a variety of problems with housing this info in an article about spell-checking of other languages, even though the essay-style writing could be upgraded to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Mandsford (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe this is not what you expect, but I think that deleting an article is not a solution, we can develop it until we turn it into a perfect article suitable for wikipedia. The research work we did was hard and I do think we do not deserve our urticle being deleted directly. I think we can contribute with wikipedia more for the following years but I will not if my articles are deleted. This is not a threat but I will be very disappointed. I ask for few weeks so we can improve it and I will thak the help of those wikipedia's fan who do know how to write it. --Gorka (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the solution is for us to help you to "userfy" this so that you can improve it as your schedule permits. I recognize that this is your first article submitted to Wikipedia, and it's a worthwhile topic. To "move it to user space", you would create an article called "User:Gorka lozano/Spell-checking other languages", and you would have virtually unlimited time (not just a few weeks) to improve it, then introduce it again when it is in the form that you want it to be. I'd add that you write very well. There are problems that we see in sourcing and in what is referred to, around here, as "original research", but these are fixable. If you want to know more about how to userfy, leave a note on my talk page, or the talk page of anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 16:24, 25 May 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.