Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Porul ilakkanam

: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. MBisanz talk 20:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[Porul ilakkanam]]=

:{{la|Porul ilakkanam}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Porul_ilakkanam Stats])

:({{Find sources|Porul ilakkanam}})

unreferenced stub of uncertain authenticity Jac16888 Talk 13:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge to Tolkāppiyam. Google Books suggests nine books (on Tolkāppiyam or Tamil literature) treating Porul Ilakkanam, and Google Scholar finds one journal article on the topic. Presumably there are more works written in Tamil. Cnilep (talk) 23:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete with no prejudice to a proper re-creation. This shouldn't be merged to Tolkappiyam, this is one topic that is addressed by the book. The concept of Porul Ilakkanam could have a decent article, but this one is not a starting point. Most sources are likely to be in Tamil for this, but there should be some papers in linguistic journals. —SpacemanSpiff 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Switching to Keep per the recent stubbification by Anbu121. —SpacemanSpiff 04:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added references. It is currently a stub, but deserves a separate article. I too agree that merge is not logical by virtue of nature of the subject. --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

::Why do you think this is not proper??? --Anbu121 (talk me)

  • Keep. I see no reason why this article should be treated as an exception to the usual process of improvement by editing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Merge, but not to Tolkāppiyam, which is a specific grammar text. Rather, the merge target should be Tamil grammar, which briefly mentions the "five parts" of Tamil grammar but is desperate for some expansion and context there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a sensible merge target to me as well. Cnilep (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a tough one, but I'm saying keep. There is some coverage discussed above and cited in the article that's marginal at best in terms of its reliability, but I don't think anyone disputes that this is one of the five parts of Tamil grammar; I, at least, don't doubt that that's the case. Naturally, this will be covered extensively in Tamil grammar books, which will almost uniformly have to be in Tamil. Thus it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are WP:RS issues with English sourcing or that sourcing is difficult to find. Moreover, as a fundamental concept in Tamil grammar, this is the equivalent in terms of significance to noun, verb or independent clause or predicate, and if we're not WP:BIASed, it ought to be included. This argument may be critiqued as WP:OSE, but I think this is one rare case where an WP:OSE argument carries water. --Batard0 (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Upon further reflection, I'm not entirely sure my argument above is a sound one. Clearly this is the English Wikipedia, and we can't have separate articles for parts of speech in every language. Perhaps a separate article is warranted because of the uniqueness of this grammatical concept as compared to English-language concepts, or perhaps it fits better in the Tamil grammar article. I'm satisfied that sources likely exist in Tamil, but I'm ultimately on the fence on this. --Batard0 (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • This is an encyclopedia written in English, but is no more about the English language than it is about any other language. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree, of course. But does this mean the guidelines should allow for an article for French noun or German preposition? This isn't based on any policy or guideline, mind you, I'm just a bit conflicted on the principles. --Batard0 (talk) 17:42, 24 October 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.