Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language as an Instance of Left Hemispheric Specialization for Temporal Processing

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Ryan Delaney talk 14:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Language as an Instance of Left Hemispheric Specialization for Temporal Processing
This is an article on a single journal-paper; it lacks sufficient notability for a separate article (and if we have an article on every paper published, we'll need storage the size of a planet). The best that could be said is that it might be included in the bibliography section of a relevant article. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Just to make things clear. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 20:54, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem worthy of it's own article...delete. AlbertR 20:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I do not even see this paper on PubMed. Sounds interesting, but not encyclopoedic. Eldereft 21:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per M.E. Pavel Vozenilek 22:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, part of the sum of human knowledge. Incidentally things having their "own article" has pratically no impact on storage. Kappa 00:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many papers are published every year? Just take a look at one of the indices or sets of abstracts for a single subject-area. There are hundreds of thousands of them (probably millions if we look at world-wide publications; a paper from the "Institute of Science in Society" quotes a  rough estimate of millions a year, and a paper on Physics Web reveals that "the number of papers published every year in the natural sciences has increased by a factor of between two and four since 1974"). There might not be much difference between an individual separate article and a bibliographic listing (though in fact I'm pretty certain that there would be at the numbers involved here), but 99% of papers wouldn't be mentioned in any bibliography on Wikipedia (or anywhere else).  (Research done a few years ago, using a couple of prestigious Physics journals as its subjects, showed that individual papers were read by an average of one and a half people.) In any case, that's not my main reason for the nomination. --Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 09:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Everything is the part of the sum of human knowledge, yet we're not supposed to keep everything. / Peter Isotalo 02:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * A research paper published in a journal is part of the "sum of human knowledge" in a different way than "what I had for breakfast" is. Kappa 09:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but both are certainly not encyclopedic. / Peter Isotalo 10:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am the contributor of this page and I just cannot understand why fiction books and comics have their own article while a scientific paper can't. If you delete it, you should move the information in an article about language learning. Www.wikinerds.org 11:02, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * What can I say? We have a quite extreme bias towards popular culture, especially the kind enjoyed by young, white (, male) Americans and Europeans. The most obvious examples are Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Pokémon and Lord of the Rings. I'm definetly a defender of the academic myself, but fiction still tends to be more notable than scientific papers, and going overboard with the inclusion of very obscure material is hardly a good way to counter this problem. It's hard to be consistent all the time... :-/ / Peter Isotalo 11:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * While agreeing with Peter, I should also add that the W.w.o's analogy fails; we have few articles on individual short stories, unless they're very notable. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 13:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOR. Also, that title is ludicrous; any material on the issue should be inserted into Left hemisphere instead. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:30, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - another advert/spam masquerading as a really bad article - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:50, 15 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.