Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition

Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition

Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphaned essay from the stone age. Linguistic theory doens't even have an article, so this article is entirely meaningless. It's just a rambling essay with no focus. If there is a thing here, then WP:TNT. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The rationale given for deletion is curious. Physical theory does not have its own article (it is a redirect to Theoretical physics). Does it now follow that Physical theories modified by general relativity is entirely meaningless? That is a non sequitur, and likewise for the nominator's conclusion that the nominated article is meaningless. But even if the conclusion was valid, the article is not patent nonsense – far from it. Being orphaned or from the stone age are also not valid deletion rationales. Appeals to WP:TNT are even an implicit argument for keeping the article. In short, the nomination fails to present a valid argument for deletion, which is a reason for a speedy keep.  --Lambiam 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Lambiam: Where are the sources? How about that? Is that a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  @TenPoundHammer: It is a valid reason if the content of the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, or if thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed. The mere absence of sources is not by itself a valid argument – or else almost every stub article should be deleted before it has a chance to be developed.  --Lambiam

The sources are in the Works Cited section. They've been there all along. –dlthewave ☎ 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Lambiam: @Dlthewave: And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)