Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EXoSkeletal Model (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. Kubigula (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- EXoSkeletal Model (Linguistics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This model doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Despite being created at least 6 years ago, I find very little on it on the internet in general, only 3 Google scholar hits (two of which have nothing to do with this) and only 2 Google Books hits, both for a different "exoskeletal model" having nothing to do with linguistics. Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.
I agree that Borer's work doesn't seem to have caught on all that much; I did, however, find independent sources that discuss the model.[1][2] — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I think I need to take back my statement above. After some more searching, it appears that Borer's model has received quite a bit of coverage. The thing that threw me off was that most mentions of it call it "Borer (2005)" rather than the "exoskeletal model". A Google Books search for "Borer 2005" turns up many results. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right that the paper itself does get hits (I missed that), but this specific model doesn't seem to. Do we know the references are actually to this model? Also, quite a few of the hits are to a completely different Borer 2005, specifically this 2005 article by KT Borer. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point - the impression that I got from my source search was that Borer's 2005 books were specifically about this model, and that she developed it over the previous decade or so. For example, Borer named her 2003-2005 books "Structuring Sense: An Exo-Skeletal Trilogy". Because of this, I was regarding the coverage of Borer 2005 as coverage of the model in question. (And yes, I was excluding the references to the paper by the other Borer - I just couldn't work out a way to exclude them from the search.)
After a bit more looking around I found a source which I think backs up my impression, and also seems to be part of a literature review, so hopefully satisfying Cnilep's concern about most of the sources being primary.[3] I have also found a couple more explicit mentions of the model being the exoskeletal model.[4][5] Having said this, I admit that given the coverage of the model, it is strange that more sources don't use the term "exo-skeletal". Most seem to label it "constructionist", "radical constructionist" or "neo-constructionist" - maybe moving the article to something like Constructionist model would be best? I'm not sure if this label would also include other models not covered in the present article, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point - the impression that I got from my source search was that Borer's 2005 books were specifically about this model, and that she developed it over the previous decade or so. For example, Borer named her 2003-2005 books "Structuring Sense: An Exo-Skeletal Trilogy". Because of this, I was regarding the coverage of Borer 2005 as coverage of the model in question. (And yes, I was excluding the references to the paper by the other Borer - I just couldn't work out a way to exclude them from the search.)
- You're right that the paper itself does get hits (I missed that), but this specific model doesn't seem to. Do we know the references are actually to this model? Also, quite a few of the hits are to a completely different Borer 2005, specifically this 2005 article by KT Borer. Jayjg (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / weak keep. Per that last link provided by Mr. Stradivarius, the theory is treated by a significant number of "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (GNG). All the sources I skimmed seem like primary rather than secondary sources (developing linguistic theory rather than reporting on Borer's work), but it's hard to know just where to draw that line for academic theories. They do "rely on primary sources [here, Borer 2005] for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them" (WP:PSTS). Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are a lack of inline sources here. But there are sources after all. Stedrick (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2012 (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.