Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups

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 of the debate was - no consensus

Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups

This is an expanded version of Antifinnougric, which was deleted after discussion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Antifinnougric. User:Antifinnugor didn't accept the discussion at Talk:Finno-Ugric languages about the relevance of his POV and created a new POV split-off, against our policy to disallow parallel articles containing different POVs. --Pjacobi 13:32, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The page was moved to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups, so the title spelling issue is fixed. (Whether it's a good title is a different issue, but at least there's only one version now.) --Dbenbenn 00:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

delete because the title isn't even spelled correctly. I do support however, the creation of an in-depth article Criticism of the Finno-Ugric group (or similar). It is true that the family is disputed, and it's nobody's fault that the most outspoken critic on WP happens to be rather unspoiled by linguistic education. The various criticisms (some of them valid) of the group can be listed on such an article in greater detail than would be possible on the main page. Of course, the article would also have to be npov-policed against Hungarian nationalists (sigh). dab

~~(ᛏ) 13:38, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)~~

what is this? the "Critique" page was copy-paste created, and immediately nominated for speedy deletion? I am for deleting both. First, it should not be a "Critique", which would be original research, but rather a report on "Criticism". Second, the main article does not even have a section about such criticism, so the creation of a separate article is unwarranted. Once enough detail is accumulated in such a section, a separate article may be created. At the moment, this is pure edit warring. dab (ᛏ) 07:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

~~*delete~~ I removed it to Critique. It has completely different contents and argumentation, than the originally deleted one (please check), so it is not an expanded, but a completely rewritten version, handling all the arguments of the criticized pages. Please also delete the accidentally setup similar page with ending with edit, thanks.Antifinnugor 14:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

delete this unsalvageably POV and ignorant rant, no matter what title it gets put under. - Mustafaa 15:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
keep. This page was copy-pasted to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups earlier today. That page should be deleted, and this page should be moved to a good title, to retain the edit history. Also, although this page is an ignorant POV rant, I think it has the potential to develop into a scholarly discussion of the real disputes that exist, as has been discussed on Talk:Finno-Ugric languages. It's a temporary page that should be allowed to develop; if it ever achieves an acceptable quality, it should be moved to a section in Finno-Ugric languages. --Dbenbenn 15:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A suitable location for a temporary page used for drafting would be Talk:Finno-Ugric languages/Critique draft. --Pjacobi 15:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds like "a good title". My vote remains keep and move. By the way, I listed the copied page Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups for speedy deletion.

Delete, too cranky (insufficient evidence of peer-review, strong political agenda). Wyss 23:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
delete, for reasons of above users. — mark ✎ 00:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
COMMENT This is an improper title, I make no comment on the article content itself, but based purely on duplication deletion, then Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups should be deleted, and turned into a redirect to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups 132.205.15.43 03:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
keep under this title or under another, I have no preference, but the information should be kept. --Pgreenfinch 15:56, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Very similar arguments could be used as "evidence" that English and Hindi are unrelated. But regardless of its scientific merit, this rant is irreparably POV and it would probably be better to start from scratch somewhere else, so delete. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 23:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep This page contains almost the same information as the fino-ugric-Uralic page from the view of a critical person. THere is too little room in those pages to wirte all this information there, if this page remains, the overview of the thema is better. Nobody who criticizes it argued somehow, I just read common places, no real convincing argumentation of any kind. Antifinnugor 19:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
keep, the hungarian equvivalents of this pages and same pages after long and acrimonius discussions have been kept. See w:hu:Vita:A finnugorokra vonatkozó elméletek kritikái, w:hu:Vita:Magyar nyelv, w:hu:Vita:Uráli nyelvcsalád, and see the participiant's (Nyenyec, Antifinnugor, Gubbubu) stb. talk pages. We don't have time to discuss all points of views again – furhermore in english. Gubbubu

Actually, we do have the time. Especially since most of us don't speak Hungarian. :) --Dbenbenn 21:03, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't want to contradict Gubbubu, but the matter is everything but settled in the Hungarian Wikipedia. Let me put it this way: the page still exists because the majority of the editors thought that it could be brought to an acceptable level of quality. But there are still a large number of debated statements there. I, for one, am waiting for the outcome of the discussion here before I take a stand there, so as far as I'm concerned, by all means, proceed. --Dhanak 22:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Hungarian pages have been kept with the hope that someone who actually knows something about linguisics will verify or refute the statements made by Antifinnugor. So far this hasn't happened yet. The corresponding Hungarian articles still contain AF's unsupported statements (like Hungarian not having any grammatical cases) and are still marked as POV. Also there don't seem to be any editors versed in linguistics on the Hungarian pages (there are only about 30 active wikipedians there).

That's exactly the reason why I've been following the discussion on the English pages with great interest. I don't really care if you keep this specific article or not, but the outcome of the discussion and hopefully an eventual consensus will help us fix the Hungarian articles too.

Dbenbenn, you don't need to understand Hungarian to follow the discussion on the Hungarian pages, since AF is using the same arguments here, almost word by word.

Nyenyec 00:59, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a critic of a theory must be POV. How can you criticise something in neutral point of view? this is an oxymoron.
To Dhanak: yes, the hungarian articles on critics of FU-theory need attention. Not deletion, attention. So they are there.
Oppinions of only linguistisc not relevant - Finno-Ugric theory is a a multi-disciplinar discussed theory, and can't explain so much genetical, archeological etc. doubts. Gubbubu 16:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

comment: contents should be removed from article space and moved into a subpage (.../criticism of whatever) for providing material for those editors who can write proper articles. As dab and others said: the information should be preserved, but it is not yet ready to be called more but a colletion of scattered nationalist POV informations about the topic. (And the related mentioned articles in Hungarian are in pretty bad shape, with the POV warning, lots of possibilities to rewrite and all. Definitely not an example to follow. We would need editors familiar with the criticising concept AND writing style of Wikipedia...) --grin ✎ 17:29, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

keep: This page contains almost the same information as the Finno-Ugric-Uralic page, but from a different point of view. Balf 20:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say this, but I have a feeling that you're a sockpuppet. You can answer me on your talk page. Nyenyec 21:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, looks like it to me, too. Good catch, Nyenyec. --Dbenbenn 23:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

keep: There is always room for an alternative view point. Nemenyi 21:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This is either another sockpuppet or suddenly a lot of newbies decide for some reason that this should be the first page they edit in Wikipedia. Nyenyec 21:12, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

delete. I don't see how this could become something else than an article pushing for a particular POV. Besides, there is already a Criticism section in Finno-Ugric languages. -- Jniemenmaa 09:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
delete. "Critique of X" articles are inherently suspect. Can't think of very many good reasons why "Critique of X" should ever be independent of "X". Even if the "X" article is getting long, there are almost invariably better ways to split it than "X" and "Critique of X". --BM 18:08, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete - if there's anything useful here, it can go in Finno-Ugric languages. Cdc 02:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Merge with Finno-Ugric languages Paul August ☎ 04:52, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC).
As someone with some formal training in linguistics and a basic knowledge of Hungarian, I believe this article to be highly POV, and that many of its arguments and examples are misleading. However, I grant that this theory is worthy of mention in Wikipedia. I vote to keep, provided that it is cleaned up and that User:Antifinnugor doesn't get to monopolize control over it.

—Psychonaut 17:16, 20 Dec 2004 (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.