Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparative Dravidian Linguistics

:{{la|Comparative Dravidian Linguistics}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparative_Dravidian_Linguistics Stats])

:({{Find sources|Comparative Dravidian Linguistics}})

This page should be deleted as it is written like a foreign language dictionary, which Wikipedia shouldn't be. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 10:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This page should not be deleted for the following reasons:

1. It speaks to the gap in the literature on Wikipedia pertaining to Comparative Dravidian Linguistics which has hitherto remained unaddressed.
2. The inclusion of the comparative phonetic table of Dravidian words serves to illuminate the methodology of Comparative Dravidian Linguistics.
3. The inclusion of Tamil script in the table is in accordance with current academic research in Comparative Dravidian Linguistics which employs Tamil script as the standard script in which phonetic, and morphological research is carried out.
4. It is, therefore, not 'written like a foreign language dictionary' which Wikipedia certainly should not be.
5. It is written like any other encyclopedic entry, and designed to be edited, amended, and refined which is precisely what Wikipedia should be. -- புகழ் 11:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I disagree with the proposer's reason for deletion: this is an article about comparative linguistics, and it presents some information in the form of a table comparing languages, which is proper.

:However, it does duplicate material that is either already covered or could be included in the articles Dravidian languages and Robert Caldwell, and we should consider whether this article content should be merged or deleted as unnecessary duplication. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Agree with proposer, and this also appears to be a list WP:NOT. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Where does WP:NOT prohibit lists per se? That will certainly come as news to the editors of all of Wikipedia's featured lists. Angr (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, nothing useful in this article that isn't already at Dravidian languages. Angr (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Merge (if there's anything not redundant) into Dravidian languages. It appears to have been written in ignorance that the latter exists. (There's no separate article on Comparative Indo-European Linguistics.) — As for the standard academic usage of Tamil script, can we at least also have the standard romanisation? —Tamfang (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• I considered the option of merging, but (1) the article is basically completely unsourced except for the uncontroversial claim that Tamil, Malayalam, Telugu, and Kannada are genetically related languages, and (2) the article really has nothing useful that isn't already at Dravidian languages. The table of related forms should be deleted no matter what, because even with a romanization tables like that don't prove anything. They're actually worse than useless, because they can mislead readers into thinking they convey meaningful information, when they don't. Angr (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, given that Wikipedia is an English language encyclopedia, the chart should be romanized. As for being 'useless', it certainly is not. Enthusiasts who can read Tamil script are given easy access to comparative methodology, which is the primary analytical tool with which linguistic data from each distinct language is manipulated, and knowledge extracted. The reader can easily, and instantly see how the morphemes individually, and collectively converge, and diverge. It really is a treat to see such painstakingly meticulous work presented with such facility. -- புகழ் 16:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• No, in fact, they can't. A table of cognates cannot show how the comparative method works or why related forms are related. At best it shows superficial similarities, but those alone are not enough to prove that words are related. Our articles on language families are full of these tables – I'm not singling this article out by any means! – and they frankly do more harm than good in my opinion. Angr (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: There is nothing useful. The so called comparative study is already covered in Dravidian languages. The table just provides translation, nothing about the topic. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
• Disagree. The table is a sample of the comparative method displaying the distinct phonological, and morphological forms for the same meanings across the four primary Dravidian languages: Kannada, Telugu, Tamil, and Malayalam. Thus, given the topic being illuminated it is an instructive demonstration of the comparative method in action. -- புகழ் 16:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
• Where is the so called 'method'? I cannot see even a single word in the article which explains the method. The table provides just translation. Anbu121 (talk me) 03:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• "Comparative linguistics is concerned with classifying languages according to language family through the application of the comparative method which exploits phonetic, morphological, and syntactical characteristics of the language under investigation in its analysis." The attached table illustrates how the comparative method is applied to the questions of comparative linguistics in practice. Cheers, -- புகழ் 11:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• No, the table shows some of the source data. —Tamfang (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. In addition to the other problems, the "Comparative Phonetic Analysis" appears to be original research, as it is unsourced.  Sandstein  05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

: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.