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.  Sandstein  06:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingualism (Brain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Basically an essay. Reads more like a research review for a Trends paper than an encyclopedia article. "Bilingual brain" may well be an encyclopedic topic (if not for an article, then for a section in the Bilingualism article, but an article like the current one is not really suitable for Wikipedia. As there has been no significant improvement in at least a year (stuff has been added and subtracted, but the overall style of it has remained the same), I propose that it would be better just to remove this and let someone else have a go at this topic from scratch. rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep good sourced article at a high but reasonable degree of technicality on a significant topic. There's an overlap between what might be in an academic review and a wikipedia article. This fits in that area. (I might suggest copyediting to give a slightly more explanatory style). Lack of improvement is not reason for deletion, let alone slowness of improvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but move to Bilingualism (neurology). Good topic, article already has plenty of sources, all that needs to happen is for the article to be wikified according to the Manual of Style. MoS concerns shouldn't qualify for deletion.--hkr Laozi speak 01:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that none of the issues I raised above are MoS, they are content issues. Interesting, though, that you seem to think you can cancel all of them out by proclaiming "good topic!". Care to elaborate? rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me quote your deletion rationale: "Reads more like a research review... stuff has been added and subtracted, but the overall style of it has remained the same". There are references in the article, lots of them, your concern is on how the article is written. I can't see how this is not a Manual of Style concern, since that is primarily what the MoS deals with. Unless you're arguing that it violates notability criteria?--hkr Laozi speak 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Manual of Style is about stuff like where to put quotation marks; don't get confused just because it has the word "style" in it. When an article is written like an essay, that's a content issue, not an MoS issue. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This really is a trivial issue but... the Manual of Style is just "about stuff like where to put quotation marks"? No. It's not. The MOS covers everything regarding how to correctly write a wiki article from the layout (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)) to formatting (Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (formatting)) to content (Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (content)). Content issues can be MoS issues, unless they're about notability and reliable sources, which is not a problem that affects the nominated entry.--hkr Laozi speak 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree, it's written like a scientific journal, but I think it can be rewritten, with a cleanup, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. I still think the article should be kept, but I see your point.--hkr Laozi speak 21:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not incubate this until someone fixes it? T. Canens (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2010 (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.