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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup Sports!} 19:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sociolinguistics research in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article has negligible content, and the subject matter would seem to belong as a section in Sociolinguistics or Languages of India. Tamfang 17:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Never delete for lack of content--Pheonix15 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks to me like this is just WP:SYNTH Corpx 18:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Boricuaeddie 01:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Corpx. The external links should support the content of the article, not the other way round. Shalom ^Hello 03:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for long enough to attempt cleanup. This is an absolutely appalling and useless article as it is -- but it's a topic deserving of an article. A very quick Google Scholar search finds book reviews for "Explorations in Indian Sociolinguistics", Rajendra Singh, Probal Dasgupta and Jayant K. Lele, New Delhi and London: Sage, 1995. There are bound to be plenty of other reliable sources out there, but it will take time to gather them and create a worthwhile article from them. --Zeborah 09:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is something particularly important going on - in which case the article should be totally rewritten (see last note above). Most large nations - especially multilingual ones - have people doing sociolinguistics research. What is notable about that? John Hill 11:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - 'notable' in a Wikipedia context doesn't mean 'unusual' or 'unique'; it means it's something that has been written about by reliable sources. I've gathered a quick hodgepodge of sources on the article talk page, not all of which are perfectly on topic but whose existence does show that this topic has been written about by numerous scholars, hence is 'notable' in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Of course asking what's unusual about the situation in India is a fair question too: the answer to that is that it's a *really* multilingual country, more so than any other country I'm aware of except perhaps China (and because of the common written system, not to mention political situation, in China the situation there is quite different). Anyway, I'll be at the library this morning and hopefully will be able to get at least a decent stub started over the weekend. --Zeborah 19:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless expanded. The article is very short, and doesn't emphasize why the topic deserves a separate page (in fact, it states "but only a few have concentrated on the sociolinguistic situation of India"). Keep after rewrite by Zeborah. Great work. utcursch | talk 10:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, empty. Kappa 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the expansion Zeborah. Kappa 08:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wow, an entire article about the fact that somebody is doing research on something. I wonder what the "H" stands for in PHD? Mandsford 22:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty, unless someone starts the potential expansion. The talk page has much more significant information than the article, and will hopefully be preserved in user space. Abecedare 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I've just added several sections to the page (complete with references). My head now aches mightily. :-) It could still do with work because I haven't tidied any of the stuff that was already there, but it should be enough to go on with now. --Zeborah 09:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Definite keep now after the tremendous rescue effort by Zeborah. Abecedare 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now I agree with Utcursch - you have done a great job Zeborah! I reverse my earlier opinion. Thank you very much. With a bit of minor editing it will be a really good and useful article now. What a difference in such a short space of time! John Hill 12:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zeborah. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per John Hill. Keb25 16:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC). Keep after the rewrite. Keb25 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you clarify which part of John Hill's comments you're referring to? The article has been significantly changed since he made them. --Zeborah 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Rationale per nom no longer applies. dr.ef.tymac 09:08, 7 September 2007 (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.