Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verject

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verject

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

Neologism for which there are no reliable sources to support notability. —Ryulong (竜龙) 09:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does anyone have access to the (one, so it would not be sufficient in and of itself) source referenced in the article? And if so, could they describe the depth of its coverage? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be mistaken, but I believe it is this PDF. I'm confused though, this is an English translation of a source written in Japanese about Spanish sentence structure? - Sudo Ghost 10:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just quickly skimmed through the cited source. I would classify it as a work in the philosophy of language, though others may call it theoretical linguistics. In brief, the monograph argues that language reflects the structures of cognition. It re-labels the syntactic role "verb" as "verject", since the former names both a syntactic category and a lexical category. The data for the monograph come from Spanish, but there is no suggestion that "verject" is limited to Spanish. Indeed, the theory (and thus the term) addresses human language generally, though all the linguistic data seems to come from Spanish. Cnilep (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NEO. Aside from the one PDF reference, the only other things I could find online were internet forums discussing the recent "invention" of this word, and how it isn't an actual term. That's not to say non-internet sources don't exist, but it seems very doubtful. - Sudo Ghost 11:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete - Appears to fail the conditions specified in Wikipedia's policy for the inclusion of articles on neologisms. Unless someone can supply the reliable sources necessary to show that those conditions are satisfied, the article should be deleted. Even if use of the term were to become sufficiently widespread to provoke discussion of its definition in reliable secondary sources, it seems unlikely that there would ever be much scope for an article's including anything more than a bare definition of the term. In that case Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, would seem to be the proper place for it.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 12:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PS. From the sole source given in the article, the term "verject" would appear to be being used to refer to nothing more than the main verb phrase of a sentence. If that's the case, and use of the term were to become sufficiently widespread to provoke discussion of its definition in reliable secondary sources, then the appropriate place for any explanation of it would appear to be in Wikipedia's article Verb phrase.
  David Wilson (talk · cont) 13:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - David, "verb phrase" in linguistics is limited to generative syntax's use as simply a verb+it's object. And unfortunately the verb page on WP is already such a mess that introducing additional information as is may be detrimental. Allowing verject however would likely allow for greater clarity on that verb phrase.Drew.ward (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no hits on JSTOR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete -- Being as the concept was presented and published in 2006 (over 5 years ago) it is not a neologism. It is also a unique term for which there is no other word out there. Linguistics is a developing field and when something is contentious it is quickly contested in other published works. If in 5 years no one has bothered to dispute the validity of the concept of verject, it is not likely that it is to be disputed.
In developing fields, number of sources should not be the primary impetus behind decided whether something is of encyclopedic value or not. The branch of linguistics dealing with how things work holistically is usually called functionalist grammar and has a fairly limited body of work as it's only come into its own since the late 1970's but at the same time the focus of the linguistics community as a whole during this time has been generative syntax which ignores function and supports a different system of analysis in which the verb is tied to its object rather than analyzed separately. Even in this body of work though there is quite a bit of discussion of the concept of verject yet lacking a single term for it, instead is talked around in various periphastic ways.
The article cited is a translation into English of an article originally written in Japanese with verject proposed in a discussion of Spanish. This shows the universality of the concept as being understandable across three different languages and should be seen as an advantage unlike so many wikipedia articles which attempt to shape linguistic concepts only into a mold reflected a particular editors view of English and ignoring linguistic universals.
I will concede that this concept is not well published about. It is also fairly poorly understood as it comes from a branch of linguistics that has yet to gain more popularity than Chomskyan schools, and that it will likely be another couple of years before more papers are published on this (because of bias and specific foci of conferences rather than validity). However, I would also point out that the standard practice here on wikipedia (and in much of linguistics) of calling everything from the part of speech to a phrase to a group of items to the verject itself simply "verb" leads to a great deal of confusion among linguists, educators, and lay readers alike and that deleting this article will only sustain and propagate this confusion whereas allowing the concept to be referenced would allow much greater clarity as wikipedia editors would have the versatility of using this concept in the many articles dealing with the concept that currently require a rewrite including grammatical tense, grammatical aspect, grammatcial mood, voice, polarity, and several others.
If consensus is delete then so be it. However, let that consensus be based on linguistics, clarity, and the like rather than fear of something different than "the norm". And also, please ensure that the same level of scrutiny is applied to verject as is applied across the spectrum of WP and WP linguistics articles. Otherwise there is a massive list of articles that will need to be on this list.Drew.ward (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If in 5 years no one has bothered to dispute the validity of the concept of verject, […] — On the other hand, if in 5 years no-one else has taken the concept on board, then it has failed to escape its creator and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia because it is simply not in the general corpus of human knowledge. If you want to prove otherwise, then prove it the proper way, with source citations of linguists other than its inventor discussing and documenting this concept. This is an encyclopaedia. Consensus isn't to be based upon linguistics and how cool you personally think an idea to be. Consensus should be based upon encyclopaedism — whether this concept has escaped its creator and become a part of the general corpus of documented human knowledge. If it hasn't, then no matter how cool you personally think it to be, and how cool you think it to be to be able write encyclopaedia articles using a novel idea that linguistic scholars and linguistic works simply don't document, it does not belong in an encyclopaedia. Make your argument properly, with sources, or you will lose it. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drew -- Question. Given that the article is, at least at this point, a bare dictionary definition, might it not be appropriate to park it instead at Wiktionary? We generally don't host bare dictionary defs.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't advise him to shunt it off to some other project that has lower standards of inclusion.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ryulong - what's up with your tone? You seem oddly deadset against this topic. @Epeefleche, most linguistics articles on WP read like definitions at their core with many others being only definitions. However, if a user sees a concept in an article he is unfamiliar with , then being able to click a crosslink to a page on that topic is not only helpful but necessary. I could easily expand this article considerably but felt that as it is new that I limit it to the common concept lest accusations of original research be put forth.Drew.ward (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        In this case, however, the word is a "constructed" word that, according to everything I found online, has been used by (at most) exactly two people, yourself and one other (the other one being a dubious translation), and has not accepted and used or commented on by anyone in any reliable sources. - Sudo Ghost 06:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Drew.ward, I am deadset against people like yourself trying to get their personal projects on Wikipedia for some sort of level of international acknowledgement when they should not be using this site to promote their original ideas or other personal items. No one aside from yourself has ever used the word "verject" before, and some Japanese publication translated into English should not be used as a way to promote your fringe linguistics concept.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ryulong, I do not nor have I ever used WP as a soapbox. In fact I spend most of my time working to keep opinions and such out of the various linguistics articles on here. You on the other hand are using this deletion debate in exactly the way you are accusing me. Because you seem to disagree with the idea of the article you are declaring it original research, soapboxing, and the like. Arguing to keep something you don't like out of WP (and further arguing against its inclusion in other wikis) because you don't like it or don't like that another admin was challenged on it originally, is exactly the type of behavior WP:SOAP is meant to prevent.Drew.ward (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drew, your arguments convinced me this article had no place (yet?) in Wikipedia. -- Luk ^talk 11:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there aren't reliable sources discussing the term, then there shouldn't be an article on it. As simple as that. If Drew can, in the future, get some reliable sources to discuss and use the term, then he can resubmit the article with those references included. Silver seren^C 17:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryulong exactly what qualifications do you have that allow you to judge this as fringe or not? Also, this is not my original research and if it were there would be a lot more to the article.

Regarding the source -- why is there such insistence that this is not a valid or acceptable source? I also don't see why the fact that the document was written by a Japanese linguist and originally in Japanese has anything to do with anything. As to the quality of the translation, the translation was carried out by the original author and the quality of the English is far greater than most of that found in wikipedia articles and in the various comments left by admins including those disputing its quality here.Drew.ward (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no need for any qualifications. A simple search in academic journals shows there's nothing about this term that you are grasping onto.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There IS no need...(grammar and all since we're talking about language). In fact though, your statement shows the ignorance of such a claim. Beyond the idea that someone shouldn't question and judge material for which they are not equipped to properly analyze, anyone working successfully in many fields, especially linguistics, would know that there is no such thing as a "simple search" and that simply plugging a set of terms into Google or JSTOR rarely returns effective results.Drew.ward (talk) 06:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. The article should be written so that someone with no previous knowledge of the subject should be able to view the article and gain some measure of understanding of what they are reading, and to be able to judge for themselves the notability of the subject based on the reliable sources presented. Therefore, the "qualifications" of an editor are completely irrelevant to any AfD discussion. If the article and its reliable sources are presented in such a way that only "qualified" individuals can asses the information presented, then the article has critically failed in its purpose. Furthermore, if anyone is "not equipped to properly analyze" this article, it is only because the article is lacking the very basic "equipment" that every Wikipedia article is expected to have, reliable sources. This article, as presented, does not belong on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 06:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my point. The article is written in such a way but the source is being deemed unreliable. In technical fields, although the articles itself should be written toward a lay audience, judging the quality of sources should require more than lay understanding. Most articles by Chomsky seem like gibberish if the person reading them doesn't have a background in linguistics and in his case especially if that person hasn't already read all of the previously written things by Chomsky. However, I doubt that anyone here would declare one of his essays unreliable simply because a third grader in Wisconsin can't understand it. Whether this article meets overall wikipedia standards is one thing, but who and how can effectively judge the quality and reliability of sources is a very important issue as the pattern and attitude seen here would limit wikipedia to only "popular" writings and if policies are to be applied evenly, many articles and many more sources within articles would need to be removed.Drew.ward (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per User:Silver seren, couldn't have said it better myself. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no other scholarly sources using the term. Although it seems like a useful distinction, it is not one that is established in linguistics or philosophy. (See also my comments above in response to Epeefleche.) Cnilep (talk) 00:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the lack of sufficient coverage in multiple RSs, and the fact that it is a dicdef. I'm open to reconsidering should these issues be shown to be addressed, but at the moment I believe this does not meet our criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also failed to find any independent sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:40, 29 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.