Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WordClock

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 5, 2005 00:52 (UTC)

[edit] WordClock

Vanity page, not notable. Apparently self-promotion by the owner of the Global Language Monitor who wants more links to his site. DELETE. Macrakis 07:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Scholars agree that it is nearly impossible to define what exactly constitiutes [sic] a word (does 'go,' 'goes,' and 'going,' constitute one word or three?). The first half of that is OK, but the sum of the words in the example is one. Chuck in "gone" for good measure and you still have one. Add "goner" ("Two bullets in his brain? He's a goner") and you have two. Pluralize it ("goners") and you still have two. It's a matter of inflectional morphology, baby: you have two lexemes. Linguistically underinformed self-promotion. Delete. -- Hoary 11:02, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, with a few four-grapheme words thrown at Hoary for beating me to it ;). -- Jonel | Speak 15:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The author me [[User:PJJP|PJJP] who is definitely not anonymous and created a PJJP some time ago.

You apparently weren't logged in when you created the article, because the edit is identified by your IP address. --Macrakis 16:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the number of words in the English Language: this is applauded by serious linguists who are tired of the games that are played over words; the number of which can never be cited for the reasons you cite. However academics in other disciplines fail to understand how scientists can estimate the number of stars, galaxies and even atomic particles in the Universe, the number of neurons in a human brain, the number of people on the planet, but cannot provide even a rough estimate of the number of words in the language. The estimate is used worldover as a starting point for discussions. If you feel you must delete, then sobeit; I've had my say. PJJP

Please provide evidence of worldwide usage. -- Jonel | Speak 01:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously it is possible to estimate the number of words used in a language, by any of a number of criteria. But that is not the issue in the proposed deletion of the article. The question here is whether your WordClock web page deserves an entry in the Wikipedia. There is a separate discussion on Number of words in English. --Macrakis 16:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.