Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radically Disentangled Morphology

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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radically Disentangled Morphology[edit]

The article is couched in scientific jargon and impressive looking references but when you look deeper nothing actually mentions the term "Radically Disentangled Morphology". Google has nothing for it either. This appears to be either a hoax or original research. Ros0709 (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name Halldór Sigurðsson gets a few hits on Google, but "radically disentangled morphology" gets nada. I don't read... whatever language that is (Icelandic?)... so I can't tell if any of the results in that language actually do mention this term's equivalent or not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a term paper of some sort. The references are more about attributing proof to the argument that there is RDM than being about the phenomenon. Padillah (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need a linguist here, STAT, at least as far as evaluating the content of the article. Halldór Sigurðsson is a very common Icelandic name, and many of the first hits are for others of the same name. Searching Halldór Ármann Sigurðsson, the full name of the author, brings up better results, including his page as a faculty member at the university in Lund (Sweden) as well as several other linguistics papers not mentioned in the article. Not a term paper, and is peer-reviewed research by a professional in the field, but beyond that, I can't evaluate the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Pending further investigation. It appears genuine. It's mentioned on Page 242 of Non-nominative Subjects By Peri Bhaskararao, Karumuri V. Subbarao ISBN 9027229708. The question of whether syntax precedes or follows morphology in a derivational grammar divides morphological theories into two classes: lexicalist theories assume that morphology precedes syntax; late insertion theories assume the opposite order. This is such a theory, although it's pretty obscure. Maybe too obscure for WP. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, maybe not a hoax, but I'd still Delete it because it's a very specialized, obscure topic. And it reads like chomskybot output. <eleland/talkedits> 09:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. This may or may not be a notable theory - I have no opinion on the matter. The larger problem seems to be that the article is strongly deficient in context, so it fails to enable a general interest reader to figure out what the hypothesis predicts or what competing ideas exist. Were such context provided, I would likely change my opinion; it would seem this is the hypothesis of a credentialled academic. Moreover, if that context were here, we might be able to intelligently point to a more general article in which this paragraph could fit. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to morphology (linguistics) and let it sink or swim there by normal wikiprocess. This is too specialised (and presently too brief) for its own article. Morphology (linguistics) provides (at least some of) the necessary context and already has 3 subsections in a section titled Models of morphology. This can be merged as a fourth. We can safely assume (we must assume) that (at least some of) the editors of that page have the knowledge required to decide if it should stay there or disappear entirely. Qwfp (talk) 13:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good solution: merge to Morphology (linguistics) per Qwfp. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 29 February 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.