Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language fragment

Language fragment

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

Page appears to be original research. It suggests that 'Language fragment' is a term of art in linguistics or some other field of language study, yet there is no evidence that this is so. Although a number of scholarly papers containing the phrase were located at Google Scholar, these appear to use the phrase in a general sense with a variety of ordinary-language meanings, not as a specialized term. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics#Language fragment. Cnilep (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no evidence of this term having this specific meaning, which may be getting confused with sentence fragments. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub, it will be fleshed out, it's not doing anything malicious. The original wording was "A fragment of a language is a subset...", so the stub was making no 'term of art' claim. The example is a bit strange, but the page needs more work, not deletion. M 21:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if 'term of art' is (perhaps ironically?) an unfamiliar term of art. It just means a term used with a specific meaning in some field, as opposed to a word or phrase with ordinary, non-specialized meaning. If language fragment had a specialized meaning in linguistics, it would be worthy of inclusion here. Cnilep (talk) 14:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The phrase is in fact attested in scholarly literature, but as noted in a variety of contexts that may just mark the variety of plain-English notions that "language fragment" calls forth. It apparently appears most frequently in works related to "cognitive science" and similar forms of cyber-scholasticism and metaphysical engineering, which again makes me wonder whether there is enough substance in any of these uses to make a well formed article in English. If this is kept, I've added a sentence to link to one of the alternative senses noted in the discussion. For the time being, it might best be turned into a disambiguation page aiming at sentence element and attested language, maybe others. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't honestly say delete just because it's a poorly written article that makes no effort to inform anybody about the subject, or that it has no citation to sources that might be able to explain the concept without a lot of buzzwords and jargon, since those are problems that can be fixed. But I have no desire to say "keep" on this piece of crap of an article. Mandsford (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just a stub that needs expansion. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]