→M-T pronouns: Reply
|
→M-T pronouns: Reply
|
||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:'''Comment''' I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the [[Nostratic_languages#Proposed_features_of_Proto-Nostratic|Proposed features]] section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? [[User:AnandaBliss|AnandaBliss]] ([[User talk:AnandaBliss|talk]]) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
:'''Comment''' I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the [[Nostratic_languages#Proposed_features_of_Proto-Nostratic|Proposed features]] section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? [[User:AnandaBliss|AnandaBliss]] ([[User talk:AnandaBliss|talk]]) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
::As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "[[teach the controversy]]" energy. |
|||
::@[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. [[User:Warrenmck|Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ]] 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC) |
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.
For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:
Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]