Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of no-linguistic-absolutes


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Theory of no-linguistic-absolutes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article about a linguistic theory. PRODed as "No references, and so does not provide the views of reliable sources". PROD removed without reason given. Searches give no indication that such a theory has been proposed in scholarly sources. Mduvekot (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My Google search for the term yields nothing at all, suggesting to me that it could well be made up. I've tagged it for speedy deletion on that basis. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been declined in favour of this Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm the culprit – I agree it all looks made up, but there is still some chance the article's title might be the paraphrased name of something legitimate, and and AfD is a way to gauge that. No objections if this gets snow-closed . – Uanfala (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Appears to be original research without references. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as unreferenced original research. I couldn't find a legitimate thing it might be a paraphrase of. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not delete. The article should not be deleted. It is a boiled down translation of a theory published by RASK - Syddansk University, in Rask: Internationalt tidsskrift for sprog og kommunikation, 2000, pages 40-48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingo999 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you provide more detail, including the author and title of the publication you mentioned? I'm not able to access the 2000 issues of Rask (their web site says "Access is denied due to invalid credentials"), and according to WorldCat there are no paper copies available at universities near me. If the journal is indexed somewhere, or if the study is available in some other format we would be better able to judge its impact and notability. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Hold on I'll get the chance to have a look at a paper copy of that journal by the start of next week. – Uanfala (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even with a reference, as written the article reads like an opinion without enough information to provide a neutral point of view or a dictionary definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've had a look at the April 2000 issue (no. 12) of RASK, and the page range given above falls within the limits of the paper "Critique of Linguistic Reason II" by Wataru Koyama. Is that the one you were referring to, ? I don't see anything relevant in the December issue. – Uanfala (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we assume that Koyama's "Critique of linguistic reason" is the incompletely-named source that the article cites, then I'm not seeing support there. For example, I don't see anything in Koyama that supports the idea of in lexicon versus per sentiunt approaches. And given that Koyama is trying to define a unified theory of synchronic and diachronic approaches, he would seem to be at odds with an argument that no unified theory can be correct. That said, I've merely skimmed Koyama, and in any case Lingo999 may have been thinking of a different article. But unless more detail is forthcoming, I'd say delete. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Still reads like OR, and the lack of significant sourcing does not bode well. Dloh cierekim  18:54, 25 April 2017 (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.