Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots

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

A list of roots collected for a new and controversial langauge family, Dené-Caucasian languages. Strongly smacks ongoing Original research IMO. In any case, wikipedia is not a dictionary. A couple examples (taken from references as whole, rather than a word from here, a word from there) would be enough in the article Dené-Caucasian languages. This is not the first attempt of making wikipedia a vehicle for marginal linguistic theories. The main page itself, "Dené-Caucasian languages" is highly unbalanced, since it covers only views of (not so numerous) proponents, without trace of criticism. `'Míkka>t 20:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge. I'm not extensively knowledgeable about the subject, but there are many references; they might all be even from a particular academic camp or school.  But that does not mean the content is of no value.  The nominator appears to be expressing a POV re this deletion proposal and also the Dene-Caucasion lnaguages article, with also a whiff of merge. --Fremte (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to disagree: the nominator expresses a worry that a not very well accepted theory is covered only by its proponents, i.e., his is NPOV, rather that POV :-) I copied a sentence to this end into the main article. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is an extremely useful, well referenced article. But it's not everyone's cuppa tea, of course. 19:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not so much because it is a fringe theory but because it is a dictionary ant not and encyclopedia article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - a word collection. Probably belongs to wiktionary somewhere. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 05:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Though controversial, it is by no means fringe--a respectable academic hypothesis that may or may not prove to be accepted. Probably its a minority view at present, but minority views in linguistics are no uncommon and do not translate as fringe. The material is very well sourced to good publications (as far as the incomplete article goes--the tables need to be completed). It complements well the main article on the proposed language superfamily. DGG (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge As above. I think I am supposed to add this again, as did used Dzied Bulbash? --Fremte (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (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.