Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrastive focus reduplication

: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. -- Cirt (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

=[[Contrastive focus reduplication]]=

:{{la|Contrastive focus reduplication}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contrastive focus reduplication}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Contrastive focus reduplication}})

Dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 05:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Not a dicdef, but a short encyclopedia article in need of expansion. —Angr (talk) 06:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. Disagree that it's a dicdef any more than retronym is, for example. When the article is properly fleshed out it could, presumably, include a considerable amount of further information so it seems to me to justify an encyclopedia article.--Korruski (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep. This is a known linguistic phenomenon not only defined but analyzed and described in multiple published sources. It needs expansion, but has already begun to expand beyond the original "Word word" page. The four papers listed (but not yet cited in-line) show that the topic satisfies WP:GNG. Cnilep (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2010 (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.