Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reading Span and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution


 * 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. Core desat 08:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Reading Span and Lexical Ambiguity Resolution

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article summarizes a paper published in Journal of Memory and Language. It does not appear that the paper is particularly notable, above any other academic research. The article has the appearance of original research in that the paper has not (apparently) received significant external coverage. Was prod, moved here for discussion. TeaDrinker 04:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't appear to meet the standards of Notability. No reliable sources, no external coverage. Nothing particularly worth keeping unless we have an article on the author of the paper which a short summary could probably be added. — Save_Us _ 229  05:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Assuming the Journal of Memory and Language isn't notable in itslef. - Rjd0060 05:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Could it be saved if it is merged with another page, say, one on ambiguity? Ashkap813 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - This deserves an appropriately-sized mention and citation at syntactic ambiguity, but not an inch more. We're an encyclopedia, not a trade journal. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 05:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete 13-year-old article with only 66 citations (per Google Scholar), which is not very notable (one of it's citations is a 2004 article with more than double the citations of this one). If there is anything overly spectacular that can be salvaged into an article on ambiguity, so be it, on its own, this article doesn't stand up to Wikipedia criteria. dr.alf 08:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not appropriate for an encyclopedia, seems more like a personal essay.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 14:06, 13 November 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.