Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Phonetic Alphabet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Courcelles 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anti-Phonetic Alphabet (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 article is about a jocular spelling alphabet. It's largely original research with no references to reliable sources. Contested PROD; page's author has since added only links to more personal blogs and self-published humour websites. Psychonaut (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems to have a little more substance than the nominator says, but still far from the secondary coverage needed. Borock (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Henry Troup is attempting to locate a reference to this from the late John W. Campbell in Astounding, but it is a challenge. Also requests for expert assistance have been initiated with the Comedy and Languages Projects. Please give them time to provide assistance before the article is deleted. Mr.Atoz (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt even this reference would be sufficient to establish notability; we don't generally have articles on individual linguistic jokes. There are entire journals devoted to recreational linguistics (e.g., Word Ways) which catalogue language oddities, games, and thought experiments of this sort, but it's rare that any of them would be individually notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the exception to this would be the Who's on First? bit. Mr.Atoz (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That one is much more famous. Borock (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the exception to this would be the Who's on First? bit. Mr.Atoz (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt even this reference would be sufficient to establish notability; we don't generally have articles on individual linguistic jokes. There are entire journals devoted to recreational linguistics (e.g., Word Ways) which catalogue language oddities, games, and thought experiments of this sort, but it's rare that any of them would be individually notable. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Original research, albeit funny original research, and not really notable like typoglycemia. Linguogeek (talk) 23:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am ready to close the debate and accept the fact that the article will be deleted. Mr.Atoz (talk) 04:26, 4 August 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.