Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lavender linguistics

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Lavender linguistics

Lavender linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article that may seem attacking in nature, or implies that different genders use a different subset of languages —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the article has many problems but some of the information is salvageable and the references appear to suggest that research has been done in this area though how "lavender linguistics" fits in I have no idea. If not significantly improved then perhaps a merge is in order. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - the stub is still under construction. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• At the very least, Rename. There is no indication in either the article or its sources of the relevance of the term lavender, let alone an assertion of widespread acceptance of this term. For the moment, we have a neologism. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, even if the article is terrible. Googling shows that the term is in used, if not widely. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• The article is still under construction and will include orienting information to establish how the term is used. Crumblies (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, the term is not a neologism, it is not as widely used simply because it is a very new area of study in linguistics. I study linguistics at the university level and have heard the term used several times by professors.Bepett (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a heads up: Here are just some reputable uses of the term so it seems fine, if still not widely used. Also, you guys should definitely flag up that this is a university project. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Q: What university project is this? -- Banjeboi 06:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
      • A linguistics class at UC Berkeley is working on sociolinguistics articles. James McBride (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, and with the current name, as this is the term used by linguists to describe what is a relatively new area of study. I added a reference to the introduction from a dictionary of sociolinguistics, which I think should be a plenty reputable source. James McBride (talk) 21:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep, for now. Snow keep It was an uphill battle to find sources for gay lisp but there is - oddly named studies - that do support this content in theory. Not having the time to sort through this my instinct it to give it a pass and assume good faith unless a major revelation of hoaxing is unearthed which doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 06:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - well sourced, notable. And nice way to welcome Students from the Spring 2009 course on Sociolinguistics at University of California, Berkeley - Afding their first contribution a minute after it was created. At least give articles time to expand. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Very well referenced with impeccable and unimpeachable academic sources, including several from the prestigious and highly regarded Oxford University Press. This is an academic field within Linguistics, as indicated here and here, and they have been holding academic conferences for ten years. Therefore it's not a neologism, although apparently not well known outside the academic world. The use of LGBT subculture languages, e.g., LGBT slang and Polari, have a long history. The article is under construction, but already has way more than sufficient independent and significant reliable sources (22 at this point) to support notability and verifiability, added since nomination. This is an academic study of a subculture language, not an attack against a minority, and language subsets are used by groups based on socioeconomic class, ethnicity, regional geography, orientation, profession, gender, race, language and country of origin, etc. In fact, that is often one of the ways that such groups differentiate themselves and the members recognize each other. — Becksguy (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced article that is not attacking, about a valid academic field. LadyofShalott 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The Lavender Languages and Linguistics Conference is a major conference in linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics dealing with LGBTQ language styles. It may be a reclaimed word, but as used here it is not a slur. Cnilep (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

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.