Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media 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. A merge is still on the table and can be discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media linguistics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced original research article about an apparently non-notable neologism. I checked several archives and was unable to find any credible sources. Fails WP:OR and WP:GNG. - Mr X 23:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a legitimate developing area of study, and has already made its way into third-party sources,[1][2] although coverage still appears to be thin. In addition to the sources I found, I noticed that media linguistics has been made the subject of a research network by the International Association of Applied Linguistics, which I see as a further indication of notability. The article needs sourcing and rewriting, but not deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is certainly true that there are linguists who study mass media; there are even some scholars who identify with media linguistics (or medienlinguistische). I would be happier, though, to see some books or articles that treat media linguistics as a topic or field in its own right, as opposed to an area of interest within media studies or discourse analysis. As an illustration of my point, the editor of News as Discourse (in my opinion, the only reliable source currently cited; the other two are an apparently self-published web page and the German-language Wikipedia), Teun van Dijk, identifies himself primarily as a critical discourse analyst rather than a "media linguist". That is to say, "media linguistics" does exist as a scholarly interest, but I'm not sure that it has the required level of notability to warrant a separate page. Cnilep (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might have a point there - as I said, the coverage is still rather thin. Perhaps this would actually best be handled by a merge to the media studies article. We could start a new section about this there, and split it back out at some time in the future if the topic gets more coverage or if the section becomes too large. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Conceptually, this topic seems like a branch of discourse analysis. It seems related to text linguistics and interactional sociolinguistics, but I don't understand how it is different from media stylistics. Regarding sources, I agree with with Cnilep and Mr. Stradivarius that the concept exists, but sources are thin. The Bloomsbury Companion source quoted by Mr. Stradivarius is the clearest assertion I've seen of the existence of the concept, but it was less than a paragraph. The strongest reference I found was Mediensprache: Eine Einführung in Sprache und Kommunikationsformen der Massenmedien, a book about media linguistics. The book and other refs mentioned may be enough for marginal notability. But a merge into media studies or media stylistics is also a quite reasonable action until the topic gains conclusive notability. --Mark viking (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Mr. Stradivarius. This is a legitimate developing area of study. We can develop this article.--Goldenaster (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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.