Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistic meaning

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 already redirected to Meaning (linguistics) by another editor. The consensus of the discussion appears to be consistant with that move. Bearian (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic meaning

(1) This article reads more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. It is not at all clear that the sources used in this article call what they are doing "linguistic meaning" - I have NOR concerns that the contributors to this article have taken sources out of context and strung them together in an idiosyncratic way. (2) This article purports to be about linguistics, but the branches of linguistics (semantics, ethnolinguistics, sociolinguistics) that study meaning are not represented. (3) Instead the article relies primarily on works by philosophers of language - this is significant as linguists and philosophers ask different questions and use different methods. As an article on a philosophy topic, it seems to be redundant with the articles on Truth and Philosophy of Language, both of which cover the same material but much more clearly and with better citations and references. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was originally written as an article on an area of linguistics. It was then renamed, with the appropriate redirect, to Meaning (linguistics) which remains a serious article on a topic within linguistics. Since that time, someone rewrote "Linguistic meaning" as an essay on philosophy but it strikes me as poorly written and repeating material covered in other philosophy-related articles. There is no discussion on the talk page, although there are templates deeming this article important both to the philosophy and linguistics project. I do not think this article does justice to either category. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This strikes me as a philosophy of language essay, but the issue of "meaning" also seems like a reasonable subtopic. Maybe this isn't the right article, but the subject seems coherent to me. A problem, of course, is in the very first line: "Linguistic meaning is the content carried by the words or signs exchanged by people when communicating through language." This is a POV violation, since it's not really talking about how philosophers have talked about meaning (in "sentences," "statements," "propositions," "predicates," etc.). It also has a serious OR feel about it. Still, not sure this should be deleted outright. J L G 4 1 0 4 19:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is, we already have two other (older) articles that cover the same material, but better. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This delete vote seems redundant to the nomination by the same editor. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - yep, you're right. I don't imagine many people looking for "linguistic meaning" will want this anyway, or if they do, they'd probably know to check "philosophy of language" or simply "meaning" as well, if not first. J L G 4 1 0 4 20:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move per Philogo (below). I like the idea. As long as it's clear that this is not a linguistics article, then the article-- despite its problems-- seems salvageable and potentially useful. J L G 4 1 0 4 21:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meaning (linguistics). That's most likely to be the article anyone accidentally stumbling upon Linguistic meaning was actually looking for. After all, it was the former article's vacating that page name that allowed the latter article/essay to take over the consequent redirect. Although it's an admirable effort, the current page at Linguistic meaning gives me the WP:OR heebie-jeebies too. --Dynaflow babble 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone's interested, the original discussion on the split that resulted in the article currently under discussion is here: Talk:Meaning (linguistics)#Re-move. --Dynaflow babble 20:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the article already says up top "(see also Meaning (linguistic))" This article used to redirect to Meaning (linguistics) - until the article (contents) I have nominated for deletion was created. One problem is, the current article has nothing to do with lingusitics Slrubenstein | Talk 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm no expert, but this seems to be a very encyclopedic article on a very encyclopedic topic.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gather the material was originally part of Philosophy of language and therefore it would have made more sense to entitle it Meaning(philosophy of language) rather than linguistic meaning. --Philogo 13:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —An gr 14:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-redirect to Meaning (linguistics). —An gr 14:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the redirect? People like Frege and Kripke have little to do with linguistics as I know it. I'm pretty sure there's a well-established disciplinary (i.e., historical and concrete) difference between the realm of "linguistics" and that of "philosophy of language." If anything, this kind of stuff would be more appropriate in Analytic philosophy, or perhaps Pragmatics. J L G 4 1 0 4 14:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Note that User:Angr calls for delete and then redirect. Thus, the references to Frege et alia would no longer exist. Redirect to Meaning (linguistics) would be a return to the status quo of 15 April 2008. Cnilep (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems quite well written and covers different ground to its twin, Meaning (linguistics) which does not seem significantly superior. While there is scope to merge, move or otherwise rearrange this material, it should not be deleted per our policy WP:PRESERVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is no doubt that this article is different from the well-written article on Meaning (linguistics). But that does not make it its twin. If it purports to be a philosophy topic, we need to know how philosophers talk about "meaning" and who the notable philosophers are. And it seems to me that most of these philosophers and thier views are presented, in a much clearer and better-written article, in Truth. and whatever the Truth article does not cover seems to be more appropriate for the articles on Philosophical logic or Philosophy of language or an article on "representation" as a philosophical concept. Given that better-written articles on this material already exist at Wikipedia, I see no point to the article nominated for deletion, which by comparison reads like OR or one student's final exam essay. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed, above, that the subject matter is covered well in other pieces. But looking into more closely, it seems clear that even the best contender to displace this article-- Philosophy of language-- is going to get too long with a whole chunk on "meaning" within it. So as a matter simply of spinning off a sub-article, "Meaning (philosophy of language)" seems perfectly reasonable to me. Truth is way too broad a subject to shoehorn in all this article's specific points. "Better-written articles on this material already exist" might be a criterion for deletion, but only if there's no warrant for a sub-article; the warrant seems to exist here. J L G 4 1 0 4 21:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move As others have noted, the article describes the treatment of linguistic meaning in the philosophy of language, which is distinct from treatments of linguistic meaning in (the field of) linguistics. It should therefore be renamed something like "Meaning (philosophy of language)" to avoid confusion with "Meaning (linguistics)". In addition, there are problems with original research (and possibly POV), which will need to be addressed if the article is kept or moved. The sub-sections 'Stronger idea theories', 'Weaker idea theories', 'Gotlob Frege', and 'Bertrand Russell' seem especially problematic. There is also a lack of specific citations. Cnilep (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move It should be renamed "Meaning (philosophy of language)". It can then be dealt with by Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Language--Philogo 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Renamed as suggested: I have renamed the article [[Linguistic meaning]] to Meaning (philosophy of language) and Linguistic meaning now redirects to Meaning (linguistics). OK? I suggest we now remove the deletion flag. Any objections?--Philogo 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection if (1) a consensus emerges and (2) two different editors are willing to oversee its rewrite so it complies with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR and (3) the article is written in a way that does not overlap with Truth. BUT when an article is nominated for deletion, our policy is an independent administrator must make a decision on the final outcome. We cannot do anything until that happens. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the article as discussed and described but it is still flagged for deletion. I hope Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Language will consider that matter further.--Philogo 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy‎ & Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/Language‎; have both been alerted--Philogo 00:52, 30 January 2009 (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.