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. Shereth 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabotactics[edit]

Looks like a new or emerging theory with limited acceptance. All citations are to one author, who may also be the author of this article. No non-trivial Google hits besides this page and mirrors. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The Google hits I found lead to pages stating "no results found for syllabotactics". THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I noticed this article about an hour ago when the PROD tag was removed by a newly registered editor; I've spent the time since then looking for sources and not coming up with any. (I am a linguist, not working within phonetics or phonology except for some teaching on the undergrad level, but I do have access to a range of journals in the field). This is not a hoax or anything like that -- the references in the article are real, but the term has not been used by anybody except for that one article author, as far as I have been able to find. It is also worth noting that the article was created by one editor, links to it from other WP articles were added by another, and the PROD tag was removed by a third, and that none of the three accounts has any edits apart from those related to this article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* This is an article that introduces a new topic to Phonolgy. It is a new theory and for that reason there are not many citations of that but as a phonologist I am aware that in certain universities the methodology used in this theory is used to study syllabotactics of some Indo-European languages. I don’t find the comments made in this discussion board scientific. E.g not enough Google entries, one editor article etc. These are not valid and from an academic point of view strong and well substantiated statements. Having said that, I believe that whoever put this article in Wikipedia, made a big mistake. Wikipedia is not a platform for serious and scientific material. This article must be removed from Wikipedia and moved to a platform where scientific ideas and novel theories can be discussed with respect and appreciation. Wikipedia in my opinion is not such a place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonologia (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You did not mention why you do not believe that the points being brought up are not valid, but it should be said that a discussion concerning whether a concept is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article is not a scientific or academic discussion -- it is a procedural discussion which has to be conducted within a specific paradigm, namely that of the policies and rules of Wikipedia. The frameworks of academic discourse are not relevant here, except where they coincide with the framework for discourse in Wikipedia. You are absolutely right about Wikipedia not being a place to introduce new theories, or to discuss interesting groundbreaking concepts. There are other fora for that, within and outside the realm of academia. --bonadea contributions talk 07:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —+An gr 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact, this is not a new theory; it's just a new name for (a subset of) phonotactics. The distinction between phonotactics and "syllabotactics" claimed by the author is artificial. I'm the one who PRODded it to begin with, and my reasoning holds: it is a neologism that has not found acceptance among other linguists than its creator. +An gr 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with Angr. We already have an article on phonotactics; that makes this article a content fork about one man's minor theory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism lacking notability. Cnilep (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2009 (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.