Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readable English (2nd nomination)

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) 16:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readable English

[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)

I can't find evidence of notability for this, nothing meeting WP:GNG. A verbatim Google search for "readable english" -lorem (excluding a number of pages that explain that "lorem ipsum" text looks like readable English) yields rather few hits, most of which are using the words "readable English" in their regular sense, and nothing meeting the notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although the article currently portrays "Readable English" as a dialect of some sort, it actually appears to be an Australian company that sells its "readable" form of English as an aid to help students learn the language. See here. But there seems to be little evidence of RS coverage for this subject regardless. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that it has improved notability since the previous deletion in 2016 (but it's hard to search for the "version of English", since this is a common phrase). Readableenglish.com seems to be a commercial site, not independent of the topic. Cnilep (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Apparently an article at this title was speedy-deleted as advertisement in April 2016, about a week before the first AfD nomination, which deleted it on the basis of notability rather than advertising. Cnilep (talk) 08:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:GNG though it is a bit hard to look for sources since "readable English" is not an uncommon phrase. Though the article is careful to avoid mentioning it, I still suspect that one of the goals is to promote the company that invented this system. Pichpich (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it has value to stay. In that it is an alternative phonetic alphabet to others that exist (like the IPA, and phonetically intuitive English - both of which have Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.123.251 (talk) 03:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference being that IPA has been around for more than a hundred years and is widely used in dictionnaries (and encyclopedias including Wikipedia!) in various languages. Phonetically Intuitive English is a better comparable but its article contains links that establish in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, this is primarily about a company and its product. As such it does not look to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:25, 8 December 2018 (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.