Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indosphere

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The result was Keep per improved artice, improved sourcing, and withdrawn nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indosphere

A pathetic little fringe theory that is used only on the Wikipedia and by James A. Matisoff, serving only the purpose of bolstering Indian patriotism. Greater India, Undivided India, Indies, Indianized kingdom and Indian subcontinent (there may be more of them) already serves that patriotic purpose more than adequately. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) In case we have failed to notice - I have withdrawn the nomination already (see below). From the look of things this meets notability guidelines perfectly. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I agree that this article needs a few major edits. As Aditya Kabir rightly points out, the term was indeed coined by James Matisoff, and this needs a mention in the article. The context in which the term is used in academic publications also needs to be mentioned more clearly. Although there's a dearth of linguists that work in this area, I would disagree that Matisoff's are the only publications to use the term, since many contemporary academics use the term as well (example.) deeptrivia (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly non-notable; template non-existent. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Greater India, the content may be worthwhile, but it should not be titled under a potentially controversial WP:NEOlogism. <eleland/talkedits> 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - deeptrivia's citation is not relevant. It's a resume, not a publication, it lists the term under "research interests," and it puts the term in scare quotes, implying a lack of agreement in the value of the term on Hildebrandt's part. If someone can find one citation in linguistics that does anything more than mention Matisoff uses the term, I will change my vote to agree with deeptrivia. Rikyu (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although any well written paper that uses any term like this is very likely to cite the reference that first used the term, a five minute search did lead me to some publications that don't do it explicitly, (The World Atlas of Language Structures, Enfield, Genetti and Hildebrandt, Heine & Kuteva, Siegel & Biels, Levinson and Christensen, Grant & Sidwell, etc.) Mattisoff's paper itself is reasonably well-cited. I would also like to point out that Sinosphere, a more frequently used term, was also coined by Mattisoff. I don't see much ground for this AfD. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having looked at the further citations provided by deeptrivia (thanks!), I lean toward severely edit, not delete. This seems a legitimate subject within the realm of linguistics, especially "areal linguistics." I note, though, that several of the sources deeptrivia found have a different definition of the Indosphere than Matisoff. He uses it strictly for "Indianized" portions of Southeast Asia, but most of the other sources use it mostly for South Asia plus Tibet and Burma. So we should note this discrepancy in the edited article. Rikyu (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the language thing is not really about India (not even when we include Tibet and Burma). It's about a Sprachbund, which in itself is not a well established concept yet (I haven't been able to access the "areal linguistics" site as it requires a registration). In that case it becomes coat rack and quite unacceptable. The little that can be salvaged would only make fodder for some other article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sprachraum and Sprachbund are well established enough in Areal linguistics. Please feel free to point out how exactly do you feel the article becomes a coat rack, and make any edits that will eliminate these issues. You are right in pointing out that this article is not about the Republic of India in any way, nor is it about geography. We have other articles of exactly the same nature on wikipedia (e.g., Anglosphere, Sinosphere, Germanic Europe), and there's no reason why this one cannot stand on its own. deeptrivia (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(continues from Deep's comment above) Wow! I must begin by saying that you must make some time some day to teach me civility. You are by far the most soothing person that I had a disagreement on the Wikipedia.

But, the article says nothing of aerial lingusitics, but rather goes on to expound on "Indian" influence on neighboring countries (very much WP:COAT or WP:SOAP). That coat rack is only emphasized by the existence of so many overlapping and repetitive articles on the "Indian influence" around — Greater India, Undivided India, Indies, Indianized kingdom and Indian subcontinent. On top of that, the Sprachbund is an internal concept of Areal linguistics, a subfield of a subfield of language studies, and even there the term seems to be loosely defined (either WP:FRINGE or WP:NEO).

Besides, what I have seen so far are a few sporadic mentions that hardly covers the "Significant coverage" part of the notability guidelines. Only one person, Matisoff, discusses it at any depth, and his influence may not be enough to keep the article. Though I am not counting out the possibility of applying the Heymann Standard yet, but in light of this and this talk pages I can't really see it happening. This concept doesn't look worthy for an entry. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be non-trivial usage of the term (along with Sinosphere) in academic literature; for example
- Articles by Matisoff (who introduced the term)
  - Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects, James A. Matisoff , Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20. (1991), pp. 469-504.
  - On Megalocomparison, James A. Matisoff, Language, Vol. 66, No. 1. (Mar., 1990), pp. 106-120.
  - Protean Prosodies: Alfons Weidert's Tibeto-Burman Tonology, Review author[s]: James A. Matisoff , Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 114, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1994), pp. 254-258.
  - Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Matisoff J A (2003), University of California Press.
- Other authors
  - Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia, N.J. Enfield, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005. 34:181–206
  - Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Robert M. W. Dixon, Oxford University Press.
  - The Sino-Tibetan Languages. Bauer R.S. and Matthews S.J., Cantonese, In: G. Thurgood & R.J. LaPolla (eds) London, UK, Routledge, 2003, 146-55.
  - Language variations: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisof. Bradley D., R. J. LaPolla, Boyd MICHAILOVSKY & G. Thurgood (eds), 2003, Canberra, Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics)
  - Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, Aleksandra Aĭkhenvalʹd, Robert M. W. Dixon, Oxford University Press.
- Comment: While I feel there is more than sufficient coverage of this topic of areal linguistics to write an encyclopedic article, I also agree with Aditya's observation that the current article veers off-topic into geographic/political/nationalistic issues and hence can be seen as a WP:Coatrack, but remedying that is an issue for the article talk-page and not AFD. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a stab at reworking the article to provide it with appropriate subject context. Others, more knowledgeable in the area, are welcome to further expand the article and edit out any errors I may have introduced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better, Abecedare. I have further edited the article to remove all material that didn't appear to be directly relevant. deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done, people. I pulled the final external link from the page...some of the material on that page is ridiculously chauvinistic. Putting a garland of flowers around someone's neck is an "Indian" custom surviving in the Philippines? I'm sure that news will interest Hawaiians. And how, exactly, did they determine that 5% of the blood in Filipino veins is Indian? Not a reliable source, even if some of the information on the page is accidentally correct. Rikyu (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reduced indent) Resting my case. Nomination withdrawn. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per above and because Indosphere is a term used in academic articles as well... Ism schism (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note for Administrator - The nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Ism schism (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (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.