This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system
As noted by the reviewer, this topic IS a known thing in engineering - so much so that it doesn't require citation anymore than Paris is the capital of France. If this is underlying your motivation for deletion, please accept the new information that both I and the original reviewer have provided and remove your request. Also, Wikipedia doesn't limit 'novel synthesis' as you indicated. It's a novel synthesis every time a person writes a new Wikipedia article. If I turn to Wikipedia for information and it's not available, I want to fix that, and I'll write an article. In addition, the guideline doesn't say you can't write a "novel synthesis" - we do that all the time. It says we can't write a "novel synthesis that advances a position". There is no position to be gained and as you can see from the earlier reviewer, symbolic language is just a known thing in engineering.
We're providing a place for readers to explore this topic without having to sort through the myriad of information about symbolic language in other disciplines. All links to and from this article are about symbolic language in engineering. They do not relate the symbolic logic in computing or in art or in music. It's a different topic. I'm editing the page to remove the request to delete (where would those pages linking to this article be redirected to?) and will attempt to address the additional requests. We can build these articles together - it takes a bit of time to suggest removing useful information, but hours and hours to generate the novel synthesis that is Wikipedia. We can create to-do lists and assign them to other volunteers, or we can actually pitch in and volunteer time to write an article that will be immediately challenged by experts and non-experts and likely proposed for deletion from people who may not even be in the field. I love volunteer, crowd-sourced, peer-reviewed content and experts sharing information freely with others. I still love it, but I can see where the time it takes to participate is going to leave this amazing resource in the hands of only those that have the unlimited time and energy to do so.Cypherquest (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All that is requested is that you ensured the articles you have created is a valid concept in the field concerned, in this case engineering, and that the assertions made (e.g. its definition as used in engineering) in the article can be supported by sources. If you want to create separate articles on symbolic language used in various fields, then make sure that they are indeed a separate topic, not about another topic e.g. symbolic language as used in computing. Note also that there is already an article on symbols used in engineering - Engineering drawing abbreviations and symbols, and you have given no sources that can show there is a reason to create an article about a "symbolic language" in engineering. Hzh (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I've added additional references to show that 'symbolic language' is a valid concept in engineering and used to communicate information in applied disciplines. It's not as metaphorical as it is in art or literature, but it's not as concrete as symbolic languages in computer science. The topic is typically referenced (engineers assume readers know what symbolic language is in this context), often without being specifically defined. This is precisely (along with disambiguation) the reason the article was needed. The topic (without context) appears in hundreds of articles just in Wikipedia, and to assist readers, we want to link to a page that summarizes its use and offers additional places in Wikipedia and outside to learn more in the context of that discipline. It's a novel synthesis of a common term, and it does not violate the WP guideline to not summarize or information to advocate a position. It merely clarifies a common term much like our articles for home and allegory or word, a critical purpose of an encyclopedia. In this discipline, symbolic language is a mechanism or a technique employed for communication - the languages developed include linguistic concepts including grammars; it's not the same as the article Engineering drawing abbreviations and symbols that discusses some of the resulting symbols. The articles can be further expanded, but the content doesn't already exist and it doesn't advocate for any position, nor am I building articles around my own research - I'm linking existing articles to their proper disambiguation page and creating articles I could have used if they had already existed. Does that help?Cypherquest (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tiresome. I checked the sources you gave - some say nothing about symbolic language in engineering, and some just give passing mentions about symbolic language, and there is nothing to show that this is a subject that has received in-depth treatment in engineering. For an article to exist you need to show that the topic has been specifically discussed in depth in reliable sources, not just random things mentioned in passing. Sources where the words "symbolic" "language" and "engineering" happen to be located somewhere in there don't make them sources where such topic is discussed in depth. So far you are just conducting a load of original research. Hzh (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
