Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quirky subject

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 Keep. Nominator withdrew nomination, no delete votes, consensus is to keep. Non-admin closure Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quirky subject

Quirky subject (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Neither notable nor quirky as an article - also lacking references and sources Ecoleetage (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment from nominating editor - In view of new additions to the article, I respectfully request the withdrawal of this article from AfD consideration. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Hmmm....not sure yet about this one. I'm searching for sources presently and will try to see if it might be a candidate to be expanded. Maybe not... Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep/merge. A Google search (see also books and scholar) indicates that this is notable and there should be no problem referencing it. I'mh not sure whether this article can be expanded or whether there is a suitable article on the topic it can be merged into. I might do some digging if I get a chance, or someone more versed in linguistics than myself might show up and help out. Blair - Speak to me 04:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ya, I've been digging around and it appears that the topic *does* exist and appears to be, well, notable. However, to be honest, these linguistics folks are much more intelligent than I and thus the literature is a bit over my head....I think a merge might be perfect....Lazulilasher (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. We should cover the other languages in which this is present to lesser degrees including Old Swedish, Old French, and modern Spanish. But definitely notable and worthy of article-length attention, especially because it is rare and unusual. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I found some sources for the topic and tried to expand a bit. Honestly, the source material is technical, so the only bits added where the general info which I was able to comprehend. However, there is a plethora of info around regarding this, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable about linguistics than I will be able to help. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Ghits clearly establish notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —Potatoswatter (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep what is notable or not may be a matter of taste, but I agree with those above who say that it's notable.--Berig (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, the references that have been added are certainly enough to convince me. —Angr 10:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I dont see why we need an article on just subject-morphological case mismatching. This phenomenon is found in several languages with subjects and objects. For example, Japanese has double ga marking which looks like there are double subjects. Also, Korean has these things like objects marked as obliques or double object marking. I think that all of this can be discussed in a single article in the wider context of morphological case-grammatical function mismatching. Case marking often does not strictly mark grammatical function: it's influenced by semantics and/or pragmatics. Jóhanna Barðdal is one person who has looked at quite a bit: www.hf.uib.no/i/lili/SLF/ans/barddal. – ishwar  (speak) 12:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand and suggest early close. There might be a place where this could be merged to. Some actual Icelandic examples would help explain the phenomenon, and explain how these quirky subjects differ from the use of disjunctive case in French and more recent English. (Me, I think the article is fine.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment to Ihcoyc and Ish_ishwar I think that sounds like a great idea! I would love to see the article expanded, I added what I could, but the material is difficult for an initiate such as myself to understand...let me know if you need any help. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:39, 2 May 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.