Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micro-linguistics

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. Since there is now evidence the field exists and the article is no longer considered gibberish, I'm closing this debate. Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-linguistics[edit]

WP:NOR. vfd on zh wp: zh:Wikipedia:頁面存廢討論/記錄/2008/11/21#微观语言学 Shizhao (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "micro-linguistics" is very widely used--see the 156 hits in GScholar. However, as a non-expert, I am not at all sure this is the same meaning as this article. If it is, the article needs to be rewritten to show it; if not, a new article needs to be rewritten at this title.DGG (talk) 08:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Microlinguistics is a very legitimate branch of linguistics that has been under study for more than 50 years. But the article, written in extremely garbled manner, does not in any way explicitly describes what the branch deals with or what comprises of such study. There is some attempt to describe study of Chinese language in this relation, but it is extremely incoherent, incomplete and limited. As much I would like to see an article on the subject to be present in Wikipedia, I don't think the article in its present state can be kept. There is a need of writing a completely new article, preferably by an expert. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What was here seemed to be bad machine translation from Chinese. I think the subject valid, so I replaced it with a very minimal stub. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "Micro-linguistics" not "Microlinguistics"--Shizhao (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference? ^LeaveSleaves _talk 15:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article is an acceptable stub, and I hope it will be expanded.DGG (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--speaking purely as a grammarian, this is an interesting and worthwhile topic. User:Ihcoyc did an admirable job reducing the gibberish to a very readable and expandable stub (kudos!), and this article can be kept. And perhaps it will miraculously appear in all the languages for which one of its earlier editors added interlanguage links. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, perhaps you all can weigh in on this, what about this article by one of the editors of the article currently under discussion? Drmies (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.