Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of natural language processing

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. Randykitty (talk) 04:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of natural language processing[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This outline of natural language processing was created in 2012 by User:The Transhumanist, who is a prolific creator of outlines and portals. The basic problem is that, while it refers to multiple Wikipedia articles, each of which has references to reliable sources, the outline itself, which seeks to impose a structure on an area of knowledge, is Original Research of a type not permitted by the Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not for original research. This outline was associated with a WikiProject that is defunct and has been nominated for deletion, but this outline is outward-facing in article space; it is seen by search engines and may be (erroneously) assumed by readers to be backed up by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Αlthough the problems you identify are shared by all of the "Outline of . . ." articles that I have reviewed. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all outline of pages are contentless link collections that duplicate the topic. Link farms are so 1995. Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I PROD'd the outline initially. It was then de-PROD'd by User:ElectroChip123 with the edit summary "Just because a user likes to make this kind of page, doesn't mean these kinds of pages are bad." True, but this kind of pages are not good because they are not consistent with Wikipedia's rule that is does not contain original research. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The PROD summary made significant reference to "user has made over X number of these pages", and didn't mention much else (IIRC). There are also html comments (in the source code view) pointing to the page being a WIP and a part of WikiProject Outline. I don't know if that is an actual project, nor do I know what its rules are if it is, however that did give me the impression that the page is supposed to exist. Likewise, I was concerned that the PROD ran the risk of being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I was, however, unaware that the page is being inappropriately indexed by Google, nor was I aware of the original research problem. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, ElectroChip123. The edit summary of your PROD-removal reads indeed, "Just because a user likes to make this kind of page, doesn't mean these kinds of pages are bad." Let me simply remark that it all, of course, depends on what "this kind of page" is. Wikipedia, as well (should) know, is not a random listing of information nor the forum for pages we like to make. Just this for clarity, although I'm sure you're in agreement with it. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really understand this much, but it certainly seems like there's a spam intention in it. It looks like a page full of keywords in order to make it seem significant on "what links here" and view count. Some common terms are wikilinked. Why? Graywalls (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., true it seems more of a Original Research QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userify per its html comments, the page is a WIP. Move it to their sandbox until it is polished enough to meet the projects standards. If possible, remove it from "what links here" as well. ElectroChip123 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ElectroChip123, CAPTAIN RAJU, Robert McClenon, Legacypac, and UnitedStatesian:

Keep The nominator is incorrect about OR, in that outlines are one of Wikipedia's long-established navigation systems. Note that if nav systems were covered by OR in practice, then everything Robert claimed would also apply to navigation footers and sidebars which also impose a structure upon a subject, and which are also "outward-facing" in article space. Note also that referencing doesn't generally apply to the subheading structure of articles either, an embedded nav system we take for granted, which also impose a structure upon a subject and are outward facing. Based on the nom's arguments, all outlines would need to be deleted, and that just has never been the intention of the community, which has accepted the outlines as one of its navigation systems, a role they have performed since the beginning of Wikipedia (in the beginning, 2001, all outlines were titled "List of x topics", and there are still many with that style of title). As with all navigation pages, references are included at the destination (after you click on the links). That's always been the case with outlines and the other navigation systems. If this outline is subject to OR/referencing, then so are all outlines and all navigation templates in article space, and to remove them on that basis, a community-wide discussion would need to be conducted. This issue is beyond the scope of AfD, as it applies to all outlines and all navigation structures in the encyclopedia, and goes against the standard practice that has been followed with these for 18 years. — The Transhumanist 23:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion about this outline. No need to shout [1] Legacypac (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume people are daft. It's about standard practice (click-through for references), which applies to all outlines and all navigation pages, which this outline follows. And who's shouting? — The Transhumanist 00:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist, it's internet etiquette to not write in ALLCAPS; for they resemble shouting to get attention. ∯WBG^converse 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "if you delete this you have to delete every 'x'" is an amateur argument; please do not insult our intelligence by making it again, and instead limit your discussion just to this article. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll rephrase my argument: OR/referencing doesn't apply because it has never applied to outlines, because outlines are navigation pages. It has been that way for 18 years. If you are going to change the standard practice, then you really need to have a community-wide discussion. If OR/referencing doesn't apply to outlines in general (which it doesn't, because they are navigation pages), then it doesn't apply to this outline either. Click-through (for references) has always been the standard for navigation pages, including outlines. It is not appropriate to try to establish a new practice for outlines at AfD, via this particular outline, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. — The Transhumanist 03:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TTH is the main person behind a whole project to push 700 more draft outlines into mainspace. The argument that other similar pages exist does not matter. TTH has made hundreds of these. I've participated in deleting several and I know there are others that have been deleted. Legacypac (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts are irrelevant to this discussion, and I haven't been "pushing" them. They are simply there for the depositing of relevant material as it is come across, and they are essentially place holders for potential future outlines. With respect to the outlines in article space, thousands of editors have edited outlines, and millions of readers use them each year. But the point is, that the argument for deletion provided in the nomination does not apply. Trying to get an outline deleted for that reason is inappropriate, and violates WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. — The Transhumanist 05:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist, millions? Are you delusional? ∯WBG^converse 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as shadow article. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 07:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not OR, it's simply navigational structure, exactly like breaking a huge "List of" article into subarticles, providing categories and dividing them into subcategories, organizing things sectionally in a complex navbox, arranging a disambiguation page with sections, etc., etc. We routinely make, as Wikipedians, organizational and presentational decisions of this sort, either based on logic (e.g., our division of articles into subtopical sections) or arbitrarily (e.g. A-M, N-Z), as the needs calls for. Outlines like this are actually very useful, providing an overview of everything we have pertaining to a broad subject area, in an easily navigable format. Way easier to use than categories. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, SMcCandlish. Editors' contributions, I'm afraid, cannot go beyond a certain limit without crossing over into original research territory. Note, please, that the term, used is "research" and not "text", "write up", "opinion", etc. This expands the texts that are forbidden here. Our combinating efforts may include arranging a dismabiguation page, dividing text into sections, offering (brief) overviews, or creting alphabetical lists, but not the combination of third-party material in order to construct an otherwise coherent or even useful yet new text and post it up on Wikipedia. (For the sake of people who are new to the project, let me emphasize that this encyclopaedia is not the place for scientific, artistic, philosophical or other theses.) Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see any minimal use; link-spamming. I have no clue about the framework. It discusses broad topics under a single header, some of which don't have much to do with one another except when viewed from layman eyes. These topics often fork into a variety of stuff which might be sub-topics of same functional gradient or not. Example usages are sometimes mentioned in a similar vein. Just weird. ∯WBG^converse 18:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a subject that has been independently the object (no pun intended) of outside sources. The subject is concocted (not necessarily baselessly, from a scientific point of view) and then supported by related (reliable) sources that refer, though, to the elements of this research and not on the research subject per se. It appears this is yet another of those theses that could possibly be useful in a scientific context but has no place in Wikipedia; this project is neither a forum or a journal for scientific research and publications, nor an unruly listing of information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2019 (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.