- 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 delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pre-language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Content fork with Origin of language, merge apparently not desired by latter, no responses to the merge proposal. This stub unsalvageable, messy, name not a conventional term in linguistics AkselGerner (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't even remember exactly why I created the article, though it's not my writing, so I assume it was something to do with removing information from another page that didn't really belong there. I don't know why the name was changed to "Pre-language", but all the points above are valid. This belongs as a quick mention in Origin of language, and I don't see any good reason for a separate article --Miskwito (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The purpose of the article is probably to resolve the ambiguity of the term "proto-language". 1: what Bickerton suggest. 2: what the article Proto-language suggests. Mlewan (talk) 04:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the article creator. Edward321 (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again as per the article's creator.Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.