Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mondegreens

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 merge to Mondegreen. MBisanz ^talk 01:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of mondegreens[edit]

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

Most of these are WP:OR and completely pulled out of the reader's ass ("run naked through water" in Hunter Hayes' "Wanted"? Really?). Most of the ones that are sourced are to unreliable sources, like YouTube videos or fansites. This seems to be little more than a place for people to dump their own personal mondegreens. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: if the WP:OR was removed there wouldn't be enough left for an article. Not really an encyclopedic subject, either. Really a better subject for an English usage blog. - Ahunt (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain: Deletion would be an extreme insistence on WP:OR. The article is, on the whole, well-written, well-structured and it serves a useful purpose. Arrivisto (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Arrivisto (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto:: See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:PRETTY. Not at all valid excuses. I could make a useful, well-written, well-structured article on my own ass; does that make it notable? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: (i) They are reasons, not excuses; (ii) if the parent page, Mondegreens, is notable, then its list might be too; (iii) in the manner of Oscar Wilde, let's call a spade a spade and call an arse an arse (and not the milk-livered "ass")! Arrivisto (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Arrivisto: How is "I misheard this song lyric" notable? I misheard a lot of lyrics growing up; should I add them to the list? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: First, an individual's mishearings are indeed "not notable" (even if amusing); but since the parent page covers a notable topic, it cannot be improper to provide a reasonable number of examples of the more common mishearings. Secondly, (see below), I do not object to a merger. Arrivisto (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with parent article, Mondegreen, but trimming trivial examples. There's some duplication already, but both articles are quite small, so the parent can be expanded, while refraining from turning it into an Example Farm. - BilCat (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be unhappy with a merger. Arrivisto (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge some of the better documented ones into mondegreen. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this kind of stuff belongs on TV Tropes. Eman 235/talk 02:14, 16 August 2016 (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.