Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Null instantiation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 14:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Null instantiation

Null instantiation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The lemma is not universally used in linguistics; according to the article, it has been coined exclusively for the FrameNet project. Notability is therefore not established. Does not seem relevant enough to justify {{mergeto|FrameNet}} instead of immediate deletion. Ddxc (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I don't understand the nomination... the article seems to be about computer science, while the nominator talks about natural language. Or am I missing something? 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The FrameNet project this is part of appears to be an attempt to provide an online resource about aspects of natural language. the wub "?!" 00:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think this term is general enough to warrant inclusion; besides, WP:NOT a dictionary. — mark ✎ 12:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 04:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's discussed by Croft in ISBN 0198299540, by Valvered-Albacete in ISBN 3540245251 (which is an ICFCA conference report), and by Fried and Östman in ISBN 9027218226. I stopped after the first three. There are plenty more, and I haven't even looked for journal articles yet. The PNC is satisfied. I remind the nominator that we are supposed to look for sources ourselves before bringing things to AFD on grounds of notability. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2008 (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.