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 no consensus. Canvassing concerns aside, there are a sufficient number of well established editors casting doubt on the argument to delete to give me pause. What this really boils down to is a question of whether or not the weak sourcing provided is enough to nudge it into the realm of being notable - and that question really hasn't been answered. My suggestion to those wishing to see this kept are to find additional sources (not just the SSS information) to stave off future deletion attempts. Shereth 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bRitic[edit]

BRitic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not appear to be notable, no significant or major coverage Stifle (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Simplified Spelling Society advocates it, alone makes it notable. MinYinChao (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide citation to support that statement. --Snowded (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] MinYinChao (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
citation reports on Britic does not advocate it. Nothing better than that? It may be enough to justify the existence of something (maybe under the Deans name, possibly Britic). The other citation given as I pointed out on the talk page is to an email and not a valid source. I think you need more to justify it. --Snowded (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. Please read the source. The fact that the Simple Spelling Society mention it in their journal proves it. From checking your contributions, it seems you have no knowledge of anything linguistic, so I suggest you leave this to the linguists. MinYinChao (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)1stly proving the existence of something doesn't prove it is notable and I'd suggest reviewing the policies and guidelines around notability and verifiability. 2ndly your comment about Snowded's knowledge (or lack thereof) of linguistics is uncalled for and does not contribute constructively to the discussion of the article in question. Let's stick to the issue of discussing the article itself and it's merits/flaws which mean it should be kept or deleted please. With that in mind I have to say Weak Delete as other than the spelling society it doesn't have any appearances in multiple reliable 3rd party sources. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent). I read the Source, it reports on the death of Deans and provides details on Britic. It does not at any point say "supports", "advocates" etc. There are no post 1983 references when the SSS site is searched on Britic as a key word. Any editor is entitled to question citations, sources etc . --Snowded (talk) 14:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so if any editor is entitled to question citations and sources, why was it that you expressed your desire for me not to raise the issues of the biases you were exhibiting on the talk:Wales discussion?
And anyway, no, the fact it is from the "Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society" shows its notability. Anything mentioned by the organization becomes instantly notable, please see WP:VERIFIABLE. MinYinChao (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One SSS source might be disputable, but there are a whole multitude of incidents where the society refers to it.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
etc
while even the ESP system refers to it [[7]
and Rand has even spoken about it alongside other systems [8]
MinYinChao (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I (and others) asked you to stop accusing other people of being biased because they did not agree with you and you were also asked to stop edit warring. In respect of this article there are no third party citations that I can see other than the 1983 one you mention above along with some 17 other references (mostly minor) on the SSS site. Your ESP reference is one minor mention. At the moment, given the poor quality and the sparse nature of the references I would say delete, but if you can provide material I would be happy to support its continuation. --Snowded (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No third party citations? Are you not reading the above discussion? Firstly, any mention by the SSS makes it notable. Do you understand what the SSS is? It is the most powerful English Spelling Reform society in the world. Not only are they mentioned once by the society, but they feature in many, many documents written by them. On top of that, there are even more third part resources from outside the SSS as well. Additionally, you were exhibiting bias, Snowded, since you keep pushing the use of "country" over "constituent country", "subdivision", etc, all of which are as equally sourced as what you were trying to push. MinYinChao (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
request please get away from the talk:wales thing. It has nothing to do with this article. Let's stick to the issue at hand which is specifically why bRitic should or should not be deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cite them then. So far the SSS links are weak and not enough to support the continuation of this article. Oh and please stop showering people with the "bias" word. --Snowded (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was pretty sure that where I just spent the time writing out the list of some of the sources, that counted as citing them. But then again, from experience of you on my talk page, I realize it may take 2 or 3 attempts to get you to listen. And don't push it onto anyone else Snowded, the only person I have stated is bias, is you. MinYinChao (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentRegardless of bias or not by the user you are accusing you need to address the issue of THIS article and THIS article only. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you have been blocked for edit warring, and yet you continued to do it despite warnings. Yet you somehow think you are stil correct regarding the name capitalization, even though it was settled in opposition of your contributions? Oh, and note, that on the links you gave, they actually backed up our argument. MinYinChao (talk) 15:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commentRegardless of "editwarring" or not by the user you are accusing and the name capitalisation dispute you need to address the issue of THIS article and THIS article only. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am supposing this is a suggestion that this user may be myself? Well firstly, I'm not called "Sam", and not a male anyway, but regardless, you can check whether we are the same user by the "Checkuser", can you not? Although I personally do find it odd about the user myself, but anyway... MinYinChao (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wasn't suggesting it was you, but when users with few contributions start contributing to AfDs, it does raise questions as to their motives....Nouse4aname (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry I didn't mean to cause any confusion. It was just that someone came onto an SS forum and mentioned what was happening here - several people are discussion it, and I thought that since i had an account, I may as well give my thoughts. Illujion (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Hi. Welcome to wikipedia. You may wish to mention at said forum that we are not debating the society or its existence as a reasonably reliable source but, you should also mention to anyone else looking to cmoe here and provide input that they should review the notablity and verifiability policies before commenting. Multiple reliable 3rd party sourcing of a non-trivial nature means the article should have just that. I'm sure the policies and guidelines spell it out a bit better. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have given a whole list of third party sources above. MinYinChao (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. Just out of interest, was that on ESES? MinYinChao (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I point out that you seem to be forgetting that one SSS reference alone would make it notable, let alone the dozens that there are, along with all the other 3rd party cites. I agree with Lllujion. I can't even begin to understand that some editors would dispute its notability gathering the sources provided. MinYinChao (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nouse4aname, if he is a suspected single puprpose account, then tag his vote as such. Otherwise, the attempt to incite drama with these needlessly overlong and unncessary threads that could've been easily avoided is not appreciated. SashaNein (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have given these. Did you check the ESP and Rand cites I gave? Apparently not. MinYinChao (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please give me a page number reference for the 300+ page Legend of the MicMacs where they mention bRitic so I can try to find your substantial coverage from this source? And where precisely in all that ESP stuff is bRitic covered in more than passing? Be specific please. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not remove the citations I give. MinYinChao (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what are you talking about? Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The diff in question is here, where you did appear to remove one of his links. SashaNein (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 30 hits for "britic" in the MicMacs document. If you use the "find" bar, this should help you. And yes, thanks for answering for me Sasha. Btw, I'm a girl, lol. MinYinChao (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please accept my apologies I must of clicked "cut" instead of "copy" when moving it into the second browser. I'd still like you to point me to the specific pages which cover bRitic. And to its occurance at the ESP thing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to summarise[edit]

Nothing like going to sleep for a few hours and coming back on line. Ignoring the inappropriate comments and assertions it seems to me that the following represents the facts of the case.

Now regardless of opinions are there any other sources that should be considered? Until we have agreed on what material is available judgement on keeping or deleting should be held back. No one wants to delete an article that has utility, but it has to have good citations and it has to satisfy the test for notability. So before we go there, can those who support this page, please confirm if the above is correct and if there are other sources supply them. --Snowded (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the removal of the "success" section, considering the lack of worth of that particular source, but I think the rest of the citing is fine, and see no reason for the article to be deleted. Having just gone and had a look around the internet, I see it appears quite well known amongst the spelling reform community. (78.146.213.30) (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the removal of dubious claims (my citation request, your insertion of dubious) will be necessary if it stands. For the moment I think we need to know what the evidence is. Can you provide some citations from your look around the internet? "Britic + Spelling" produces 109 returns, the vast bulk of which are either to this page, or the existing (and limited citations). A further set uses "Britic" but not in the context of this article. --Snowded (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to make the amendments to remove unsupported claims etc. anyway as the article has a better chance of surviving that way. Responses to the questions above would be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 04:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to see a couple of bits being removed, but I guess that until better sourcing of them is found, there is not much of an alternative. The Spelling Society pages are of the most worth here.
Strong Keep by the way, just in case that wasn't clear. MinYinChao (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you shed any light on the statement on the talk page in respect of peer review by the Spelling Society and the claim that Britic has not been through that? --Snowded (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The comment left on the talk page (although not left by myself, just in case you didn't know), refers to the fact that the SSS does not have a specific system it fully adheres to. Instead, it publishes information about a multitude of differing ones, each of which it gives differing levels of support to - bRitic being one of the main ones. The society historically had an official spelling reform system, but in 1960, it stopped backing just one, and as mentioned, gave support to several. MinYinChao (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) All I can find on their site is the articles otherwise referenced. I can see no list of schemes to which it provides support. Can you provide a reference which does that? --Snowded (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? No one said there was a "list". It is simply that the systems which they mention are the ones they have backing of. There is no binding commitment of support to any of them if that is what you are asking? MinYinChao (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK so the only evidence is that they mention Britic in a small number of articles (c 1983) and some news items and emails? --Snowded (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Now we have removed the unsupported claims and the established editors on the page accept that I think I am prepared to say WEAK SUPPORT on the basis that Britic exists, someone might want to know about it. Its not especially notable, but is as notable as many a page. The editors obviously care enough to put effort into detail. However it needs watching to make sure it does not engage in unsupported claims --Snowded (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another option which is to label it as a stub and allow the editors to gather more material --Snowded (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out, L0b0t, if you cared to read the discussion, you would see that there are multiple sources.
So far, we thus have the following:
Weak Delete - User:Jasynnash2
Delete - User:Nouse4aname
Strong Keep - User:Illujion
Weak Keep - User:DGG
Keep - User:78.146.213.30
Strong Keep - User:MinYinChao
Weak Keep - User:Snowded
Strong Delete - User:L0b0t
This means that 5/8 have voted Keep, and 3/8 have voted Delete. This shows that with such a strong support for the keep of the article, it certainly can't be deleted. The only options available to us now, are how to help boost the article. Snowded's suggestion of labelling it as a stub may have some worth, but I am not entirely sure about it, considering the length of the article is not particularly stub-like. MinYinChao (talk) 20:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You would assist your cause more if you found some third party references that were not the Spelling Society. To put it very simply, you do not have multiple sources in any meaningful sense of the word. Its not a vote (please read the heading) it will be decided on facts. I have set up a couple of searches to check the thing out, it would not take much for me to move to delete if those don't turn anything up. --Snowded (talk) 21:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would posit that 8 opinions on an AfD only 11 hours old would benefit from more eyes, time, and arguments based on policy and guideline. If I may quote from WP:RS:

"* "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive."

and "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article. Secondary sources provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."

and "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources."

The sources provided consist of nothing more than an obituary of the creator, trivial mention in a newsletter, a newsletter editorial announcement of a reader's letter stating that the creator had appeared on radio and asking if anyone had heard it, an email exchange mentioning the death of the creator, a passing mention in a newsletter editorial, and a newsletter posted on some guy's homepage. Without sources more substantial than a single organization in the field and their interaction with 1 man (Richard Lung), I'm afraid article just doesn't make the cut. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see reason why must delete, I would go for keep. Thanks.

218.186.67.37 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The posting above from User:Yasis, who is hiding behind 218.186.67.37 (amongst others) to evade his block should be discounted. He is merely stalking my edit history to revert or gainsay my edits. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yasis, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:218.186.65.34 reported by User:L0b0t (Result: 72 hours), and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive76#User:Yasis reported by User:NJGW (Result: Reported and reporting users blocked for 24 hours). Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply apparently notability doesn't have a time limit. 20 year old references would be fine for me if they adhered to the multiple, third party, reliable, and non-trivial coverage parameters. The ones give so far don't and I'm not seeing much of an attempt to provide ones that do. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that the age of a citation doesn't really matter, and has no real bearing on notability or verifiability. However, for something such as a spelling system, that was introduced in 1983 (apparently), you would expect an increase in the number of sources available each year after that. Given that no sources have been provided since 1983, one can only assume that the system has not been widely accepted or used, and thus in my mind at least, that raises questions as to whether Britic really is notable, or just an idea that some guy had 20 years ago that never really took off...Nouse4aname (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2008 (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.
More