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 delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

N-V-T (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is based on concepts introduced in a predatory journal ( http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.linguistics.20140301.03.html) published by one of the worst predatory publisher (SA Pub). Most of the references [1-8] only mentions Cook's scholarship in passing, or are from Cook themselves. Everything else [9+] are 'context' reference pertaining to the V and T part of the T-V distinction, and do not establish notability.

The only source that critically evaluates the NVT framework is [1], which does mention it positively.

I'm not a linguist, but the notability of this concept doesn't seem to be established by the current references, and my google searches don't come up with much. I'm myself leaning delete here, and I'm nominating this so this article's notability can be properly vetted. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I nominated WP:Articles for deletion/N-v-t distinction, which appears to be essentially the same topic, in 2014. It was soft deleted (which doesn't preclude re-creation). In 2014 I declared it a "non-notable theory", though that was prior to the publication of the 2019 volume Headbomb found a review of. Still, this strikes me as possibly WP:TOOSOON. Cnilep ( talk) 06:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete WP:TOOSOON at absolute best, and we should steer clear of predatory journals wherever possible. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply

REPLY: This statement [This article is based on concepts introduced in a predatory journal ...] is incorrect. The article is based on "N-V-T, a framework for the analysis of social dynamics in address pronouns", Chapter 1, pp 13-34, in "The Social Dynamics of Pronominal Systems", Paul Bouissac (Ed.), John Benjamons, 2019, Hardbound ISBN 978902720318 and e-Book ISBN 9789027262547

REPLY: This comment [The only source that critically evaluates ...] refers to a book review. There are also references in works relating to a variety of languages, namely English (2) Maicol Formentelli and John Hajek, Indonesian (3)Ester Jakindo, Ilza Mayuni and Yumma Rasyid, Lithuanian (4)Gintare Pavilaiciute, Portuguese(5) Aline Bazenga and Spanish (6) Leanne Schreurs.

REPLY: This comment [I'm not a linguist, but the notability ...] reveals lack of understanding. The linguistic notability of the N-V-T framework of analysis can be better understood, even by someone who is not a linguist, if you refer to references (9) to (24) that list problems found by several scholars throughout the years/decades solution for which is not provided by the T-V distinction but is enabled by the N-V-T model, i.e. answer to the need for the following to be taken into account: a neutral, unmarked approach; types and roles of nominal T and V; grades of T and v; a 'default' form; semantic ambiguities and covert meanings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria M Cook ( talk • contribs) original comments

Your 2019 chapter is a follow up to the 2014 article published in the predatory American Journal of Linguistics, so no, my statement is not incorrect. As for my own personal lack of understanding, I freely admit it. But my own personal understanding of the topic is fairly irrelevant to its notability. That someone mentioned issues with "VT" (whatever this is), does not mean that NVT is the answer to these issues. It could be. It could be bunk. I'm not qualified to judge that. But on Wikipedia, we require that these things are recognized in the real world. And that I am qualified to judge. And right now, while the original 2014 article is cited a few times, NVT itself is rarely discussed. There's, so far, one book review that mentions is it positively. This is well-below normal standards of notability on Wikipedia (see WP:GNG), which requires that multiple independent sources comment on the actual substance of the topic. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC) reply

REPLY: (Your 2019 chapter is a follow up...)

(1) As explained to you before (23/01/21), The "N-V-T" Wikipedia article is based on Chapter 1 of a book from John Benjamins. An earlier version had been published by AJL, but it is the Benjamins chapter that says in its title "N-V-T, a framework for the analysis of social dynamics in address pronouns".

(2) You have now changed your words, from "This article is based on concepts..." to "Your 2019 chapter is a follow up to the 2014 article...". Your new statement is also incorrect, as the chapter is not a follow-up but a revised updated version.

(3) The fact that the "N-V-T" of the 2014 journal article is also present in the 2019 book chapter supports its validity. N-V-T has made its way from what you call a "predatory" journal to the John Benjamins publishers.

REPLY: (As for my own personal lack of understanding...)

You point out that your personal understanding of the topic is irrelevant to its notability. Naturally, everyone will know that, as you are not the author.

REPLY: (That someone mentioned issues with "VT"...)

(1) You mention "VT" and comment "whatever this is". Please note that there is no "VT"; you must have misread the text.

(2) You comment that "NVT" "could be bunk" and needs to be "recognized in the real world". As shown on the Wikipedia page, the "N-V-T" has been quoted in several academic works in the real world, on a variety of languages including, in alphabetical order, English, Indonesian, Lithuanian, Portuguese and Spanish. See references 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

REPLY: (There's, so far, one book review that mentions is positively.)

You say that there is "one book review that mentions is positively". Do you mean "mentions it positively"? This may be what you referred also earlier on - "The only source...is (1) which does mention it positively" - though misdirecting the reader to reference 1 while in fact is reference 8.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria M Cook ( talk • contribs)

• Delete (see also my comment above). It's too soon. There is essentially one publication from a reliable source, plus some similar ones from (potentially) predatory publishers, and a handful of papers citing these. The phenomena this paper describe may be WP:TRUE and their treatment valuable to linguistics, but notability is not sufficiently established for Wikipedia yet. Cnilep ( talk) 23:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC) reply

REPLY: (This article is based on concepts introduced in a predatory journal...)

A reader looking for what you have to say about the N-V-T page will start by being faced with comments not on N-V-T but on AJL and SAPUB. You say that AJL is a “predatory journal” and, escalating into further criticism, that SAPUB is “one of the worst predatory publisher”. However, what this page is about is N-V-T.

N-V-T is a self-standing work independently from where it has been published; and it has been published more than once and by different organizations in different parts of the world. It appeared in 2014 as a journal article in AJL (see reference 1) and, with some updates, in 2019 as the opening chapter of a book from John Benjamins (see reference 7).

REPLY: (Most of the references [1-8] only mention...)

In references 1-8, 1 and 7 inform of where Cook’s N-V-T can be found, i.e., the 2014 article in AJL and the 2019 chapter in a book published by Benjamins. The remaining are works where N-V-T is quoted and which involve a variety of languages including English, Indonesian, Lithuanian, Portuguese and Spanish.

References 10-24 are not ‘”context” reference pertaining to the V and T part of the T-V distinction’ but works showing limitations in the T-V distinction.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria M Cook ( talk • contribs) original comments

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.