Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilingual pun

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. ✗plicit 14:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilingual pun[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This, clearly, is not an article about billingual puns, it is a list of examples of billingual puns, most of the sourcing is not from reliable sources, (I removed two already that were sourced to... wait for it.. Instagram) but that doesn't even matter since all that is sourced form them is the puns themselves. As this manifestly is not actually an encyclopedia article, it should not exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bilingual puns and bilingual wordplay are the subject of scholarly writing ([1], [2], [3], etc). It's beyond my ability to summarize that stuff, but there is a lot that could potentially be said about the topic. Zagalejo (talk) 03:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed the entire ridiculousness of "examples" save for one straightforward example. There probably is enough coverage to justify an article, but I don't care enough to look for it. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in this case my reasoning is not really about notability. It's entirely possible a decent encyclopedia article could be written on this subject, but what we have is so bad it would be better to have nothing and leave it as a redlink to encourage creation of a proper article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Macaronic language, which is the next-most-general topic, which provides good historical-linguistic context, and which is a better focus for an article. --Lockley (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, I'd be ok with that. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been trimmed down from the ridiculous state that it was in when nominated, and the topic itself seems notable based on sources linked by Zagalejo as well as [4] [5] and [6]. I think a redirect/merge to Macaronic language would be too ambiguous since macaronic language refers to all uses of mixed language, not just puns. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are 力's edits enough?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Zagalejo's demonstration that the subject has a solid literature, and Qwaiiplayer's observation that Macaronic language covers a much wider field. Puns are so important in literature, culture, advertising, etc., that they deserve their own article. Thanks to those who've cleaned up, the current article is a good foundation for development (incl. addition of refs like Zagalejo's), and is no longer an embarrassment. Elemimele (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a bit of an issue with the stripping out of huge swaths of the article. And every single reference. Maybe it was rubbish, but it is hard to evaluate now and we have to start over. Lightburst (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst:, the problem is one of balance. The original article had a tiny lead, then a contents-box which showed only examples because the entire non-lead content of the article was a list of (referenced) examples. If there had been some text about the cultural importance of bilingual puns, their importance in advertising, in public perception, and about the conditions needed for them to arise, followed by examples, it would have been a much better article. I would support putting most of the examples back in, provided the article is more than just a list of puns. Elemimele (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [7] The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) 05 Jul 1985, Fri Page 2 Thank heavens Verdun: It's time to Berri these bilingual Metro puns. That's all I could find. Plenty of brief mentions of it, so its a real thing, but not really much to write about that I can see thus far. Dream Focus 15:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep my first thought was this could be merged to Pun, however I am finding significant historical use, and academic interest in the terminology. I have begun rewriting the article and added two book references and two other books to a bibliography. If this is not kept, I believe it is significant and should be merged. Lightburst (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up and referenced it. Before I go further I will wait to see what other editors think. I think the next section to add may be poetry... certainly there is more to add to history and literature. Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence presented above. Dronebogus (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been rewritten, and seems quite encyclopedic. Evidence found this is mentioned in various places. Dream Focus 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concerns of the nomination don't apply anymore since the article has been overhauled. The article is good enough as it is now, even if it's short, and the prose sources are adequate both in content and in number. Avilich (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A topic of scholarly discussion as an element of literature and linguistics. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2021 (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.