Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributed Language


 * 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. Although the discussion below indicates that the topic is notable, there also appears to be a consensus that the article as it stands cannot be used to write about this topic due to fundamental issues with a neutral point of view and original research (both of which supersede any questions of notability) that prevent it from growing beyond its current state.

I'm going to take the liberty of starting a new stub on which others should feel free to expand. If anyone would like the deleted text to use as a reference, please leave a message on my talk page. -- jonny - m t  05:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Distributed Language

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"A novel approach to the nature and function of language". Does that mean original research? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hmm-m, don't quite know what to say here. Upon superficial and admittedly uninformed examination (I am a mathematician and know nothing about linguistics), the concept does appear to be notable in linguistics, see GoogleScholar and GoogleBooks. However, at present the article is written as an OR essay, and a polemic one at that, with a substantial dose of POV, and fairly incomprehesible (to the extent that a clear definition of the main concept seems unrecoverable from the current text). "Language is viewed as a heterogeneous meshwork of events, processes and material artifacts, when language dynamics influence what individuals do, think and, thus, how the meshwork evolves". Come again? If someone can completely rewrite the article from scratch, give an understandable definition of the concept and list a few references, the article could be kept as a stub. As things stand now, however, it is hard to see anything salvageable in the article. So unless some-one comes forward and takes on a major clean-up and rewrite task, it is better to delete the article. Nsk92 (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Would definitely like to see it stubbed if it appears to be a real concept; this looks to me like another school assignment. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that this one is a school project. The article appears to be something of a plug for the work and the views of something called the "Distributed Language Group" . Nsk92 (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - per Nsk92.  a s e nine  say what?  04:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment RHaworth - I don't think that calling distributed language "a novel approach" makes the article OR.  It seems likely that many of the references are OR, but if that's not acceptable then I need to be pointed to some Wiki policies that I've failed to grok.  That said, I'm not much of a linguist, either, and I find Nsk92's arguments about POV and incomprehensibility compelling.  I agree with the "delete if no major fix is forthcoming" position.  Stationary (talk) 15:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per Nsk92. Notability is not an issue, but POV and the fact that it looks like something written for the conference this year and as it is isn't suitable (or salvageable, it would need almost a whole new article) means in my opinion it should be deleted. Doug Weller (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Although the article may need to be re-written in simpler English, i think the concept is an important one, as per JeremyMcCracken i think it should be stubbed at the very least. The concept is based on how language should be viewed in context, not just by the use of symbols (this is especially important to robotics). I think that it's important that this is highlighted as an alternative to the mainstream view of language. The references also seem credible. Ozkills (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'd be willing to change my vote if someone produced a reasonable stub. I do not know anything about the subject and do not feel qualified to do it myself. If you feel that you can do this yourself, please go ahead. Nsk92 (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm the person who posted Distributed Language, and I did that because I believe it a very important concept. Of course, I'm an iexperienced wiki-user, and from the discussion I see that the article ought to be rewritten. I'd like to leave a stub, but don't know how to do it. Could someone advise on that, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sashakr (talk • contribs) 23:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC) — Sashakr (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi! As a linguist, I find the distributed approach to be a very important development in linguistics. Surely, there are as always the usual pros and cons, but the number of papers, articles, conferences (and even a special issue of Language Sciences, Sep. 2007) clearly indicate that this is an important topic in linguistics, and therefore there is no doubt that this article should not be deleted. Whether it is written in a Wiki format or not, well, perhaps it isn't. On the other hand, there are some valuable information in the present version that might make it easier for another contributor to re-write the article. So perhaps it could be left as it is now for a while, giving other contributors some time to re-write it thouroughly?I've used Wikipedia for a couple of years now, but I haven't engaged in writing or discussing articles before, so I'm not sure about the usual procedures etc. in this situation. SunWork (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC) — SunWork (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep As noted by others above, the concept seems to be notable enough to warrant an article. The only issue seems to be one of style and content, which (IMO) can both be tackled without deleting.  I'll leave my thoughts on how to improve the article on Sashakr's talk page to keep the discussion here from going off topic. Cosmo0 (talk) 20:53, 18 May 2008 (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.