Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disputes in English grammar


 * 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 keep. - Bobet 08:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputes in English grammar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to be a mutual WP:OR essay unsupported by sources, and with a questionable WP:NPOV (for which it has been tagged and detagged several times in its history). I see no place to merge or redirect this, and I question its validity. Delete. Note: There is also a questionable category Category:Disputes in English grammar. SilkTork 14:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - what, were the sources just added? It's fine, and whatever the POV concern is, I don't see it. &larr;BenB4 15:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no sources - there are links to articles that may in some way relate to a sentence in the essay, but they are not sources for the concept or topic of "Disputes in English grammar". The topic is original research generated by Wikipedia editors - what I have termed "mutual WP:OR". I would be happy for you to indicate any non-mirror source that deals with the subject of "Disputes in English grammar". SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not particularly well-sourced, but it's a notable subject and I don't see the POV issue. Cap'n Walker 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability has not been proved. And the POV results from the stance that there is "disagreement about whether given constructions constitute correct English." as that assumes a "prescriptivist" stance rather than a "descriptivist" view. The whole article assumes "prescriptivist". Read English grammar which is a decent article that deals neutrally and properly with any difficulties or differences thrown up by cultural changes in usage of grammar. SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep — Between 78 and 115 distinct users (depending on how many of the IP addresses actually reflect distinct users) have worked on this article over more than three and a half years; and the topic of this article is well studied and clearly encyclopedic. If you think the article has problems, you can try to help fix them; but it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest it simply be deleted. —RuakhTALK 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do have sympathy for this view. However Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions gives the response. It appears to me that the article doesn't have problems so much as it shouldn't exist at all. It looks to me as if it breaks all the core principles of WP - it is original research, it is unsourced, it is not notable, it has a specific point of view that it is pushing, and it is not encyclopedic. SilkTork 19:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is full of OR and weasel words. Of course there are disputes about the correctness of syntax or vocabulary. News flash: this applies to every single language on Earth. This article doesn't provide a single notable example of debatable usage in English. All it says is that "there is often disagreement". Who exactly are the people who disagree? Linguists? They're already covered in Linguistic prescription. Rank-and-file English speakers? What they dispute among themselves is patently not notable. Joe Sixpack may squabble with Mrs Sixpack over whether it's "Ir-AHQ" or "eye-RAQ" but that doesn't deserve an article. Everything here is original research and synthesis. Whatever may be salvageable should be included in Prescriptive linguistics. --Targeman 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. wikipedian's essay, a loose aggregation of topics with the only common denominator that people disagree on something, with no reputable reference that discusses this phenomenon in its entirety. `'Míkka 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep (or merge, if an alternative can be found, since I do not believe there is not a better quality article about this topic). The POV and weasel words can very easily be removed, and the sources can very easily be added, these issues are irrelevant to the deletion process. Admittedly there is original research at the moment, but once this is removed there is still the bare bones, plus great scope, for a good and highly-encyclopaedic article under this title. The topic is notable as well, the only real argument I see for deleting this would be if it turned out that no sources could be found to write proper copy, and I highly doubt that would be the case, if someone put the elbow-grease in. Jdcooper 21:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete A dull article, citing few sources and no examples of that which is supposedly in "dispute". To be mean about it, my dispute is that the article ought to be written in plain English.  Mandsford 23:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jdcooper. Mathmo Talk 01:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep It's an important topic to have. Also, while the article is far from perfect, it has improved over time (I helped it, I can say). The lack of sources can be explained by the fact that The Sun will rise in the morning. But I'll make it my goal to find some, however difficult that might be living in a non-English speaking country. --Otheus 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Still needs work to focus on general questions,but well over the bar fro encyclopedic nature. DGG (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep notable and encyclopaedic topic, contains a lot of fine information, has several sources. This just needs a bit of cleanup, that's it.  Mel sa  ran  11:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep under the circumstances Aatomic1 15:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Split infinitive is a former featured article. Hoi polloi is a former featured article candidate. Both articles note that they have been the subjects of controversies over correct usage. In other words they both deal with the subject of "Disputes in English grammar". The statement that "there is disagreement about whether given constructions constitute correct English" is about as neutral a statement as it is possible to make. The positive course of action is to participate in efforts to improve the article. Petecarney 14:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, cases of disagreement can be found for just about every word, phrase, cliché, neologism, etc., etc - in every language, not just in English. In fact, language controversies are such a universal characteristic that writing an article about them is like creating Disputes about George W. Bush's intelligence, Disputes about religion, The briefs vs boxer briefs controversy, The sandals with or without socks dispute, etc. I can't think of a single controversy about grammar that is notable enough to warrant an article. --Targeman 18:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why this isn't an article about a single controversy about grammar; it's an article about such disputes in general, explaining their origins, motivations, and justifications, as well as their interactions with confounding factors (e.g., how some forms of English are considered standard, with their quirks being accepted by most speakers, while other forms are not). And if there's encyclopedic information we can provide about religious disputes in general, then that one definitely warrants an entry. (I'm not sure about the other ones, but a decent article might convince me.) —RuakhTALK 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's how you imagine the scope of this article, than "in English" should definitely be removed from the title given that there are no uniquely English language disputes. I'm a linguist but I highly doubt this article will ever reach a decent standard given its unclear scope. Solid sources are bound to be a problem, too. People disagree about language for the same reason they have different tastes in food, clothing, music, etc - de gustibus non disputandum est. If it's disputes of linguists we're talking about here, Prescriptive linguistics is all there's needed. I appreciate the work of all editors involved in this article, but I'm very skeptical about its future. --Targeman 00:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that people don't consider their tastes in food, clothing, music, etc. to be definitive; no one would ever say, "It is incorrect to eat broccoli with chocolate syrup", but people do say, "It is incorrect to end a sentence with a preposition" and "It is incorrect to use 'me' as the subject of a sentence." Language disputes form a unique blend of personal preference and logical (or illogical) thinking. Also, you're mistaken to think that disputes in English grammar have only to do with prescriptive linguistics; indeed, the most major clash over English grammar is actually between descriptive and prescriptive approaches. (There are also disagreements among descriptive linguists and among prescriptive linguists, though in the former group the term "non-standard" is typically used instead of the more simplistic "incorrect".) If you relegate discussion of this disagreement to Prescriptive linguistics, you're presenting a very POV-laden view of the topic. —RuakhTALK 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The difference between descriptive and prescriptive linguistics is a different matter altogether. That should indeed have its own article. If you change the title of this AfD to Descriptive vs prescriptive linguistics and re-write it, I'll accept it immediately. "Disputes in English grammar" is just too vague - an article with such a title will keep attracting disparate data depending on each editor's own idea of what a dispute in English grammar is. --Targeman 13:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that the article's been around for quite a while, with quite a few different contributors, and that hasn't happened. Empirically, your prediction has proven mistaken. —RuakhTALK 15:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary - the fact that after so many contributions this article is still chock-a-block with weasel words, unsourced statements and original research suggests it's unlikely to succeed. I'd gladly help it with some of my own expertise, but not under the current title. Sorry, but from a linguist's point of view, this article is amateurish. --Targeman 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands is woolly and un-encyclopedic. I don't feel that the section "Different forms of English" belongs there, as they often cause confusion but rarely dispute. On the other hand the conflict between "Prescription and description" does cause heated disputes, as evidenced by the cited examples. I can't think of anything else which does. Linguistic prescription contains a subsection "Prescription and description in conflict" but, in the interests of balance, should not the same be put into Descriptive linguistics? My preferred solution would be for the existing article to be trimmed down and tightened up to focus solely on "prescription vs description". The existing title might not be entirely accurate but does at least have the virtue of being fairly plain English. I would suggest that the existing title should be kept until after the re-focussing and then there should be a separate debate on change of title.Petecarney 14:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is fit for encyclopedic coverage, and I fail to see how this meets the definition (our definition) of original research.  Yamaguchi先生 04:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.