- 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nexus grammar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page contains no sources. A google search yields few relevant hits, and those are from mirror sites. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The article need a lot of work, but it does seems to be a valid area of linguistic. For example, see here. As it stands though, the article does need improving and expanding. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but with a plea for sources and more context. "Nexus" is indeed central to Otto Jespersen's approach to grammar, but I'm not familiar with the formalism introduced here and don't know where to look for more information. Cnilep (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the two previous !votes and the scholarly reference I just added. Favonian (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2011 (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.