Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voiced palatal tap and flap

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 Tap and flap consonants. Daniel (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced palatal tap and flap

[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)

The only source listed that attests to the presence of this sound in a language says they're not sure if it's velar or palatal. And it's a conference paper from 2022. In addition to lacking significant coverage, WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:NOTLEAD may apply here. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voiced velar tap (2nd nomination). Nardog (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Nardog (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reprisal on the page is practically due to the confusion of the palatal and velar points of articulation, however Morris Halle, whom Akinbo cites, describes the coalescence of velar consonants to genuinely possible palatal consonants, just as the palatal velum cannot contract enough to produce a sound acoustically distinct from /g/ or /ɣ/, making the hard palate more conducive to the articulation of a tap, just as purely palatal consonants are more phonemically rare than their velar counterparts, just as many of these consonants are allophones of velar consonants. Furthermore, the page does not involve original research, as the source that genuinely supports the page is Palatalization/velar softening: What it is and what it tells us about the nature of language from the Latvianman, who this source cites, and the lacking significant coverage is because the source material is protected by copyright such as the page "voiceless labiodental nasal" had been deleted due to possible copyright infringement, I didn't take any chances. The Young Prussian (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On which page does that paper discuss Latvian or a tap/flap? Nardog (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Given cross-linguistic evidence that velar softening mostly results in palatalization (Halle 2005) and the charcoal stain on the participant’s

velum and hard palate in the palatograms, we note however that the intervocalic

velar in Dàgáárè could be a palatal tap, a sound which is also unattested but

predicted to be possible." Did you happen to read the article? The Young Prussian (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is Akinbo et al., not Halle. Again, on which page does Halle say anything about a tap? Nardog (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Halle does not explicitly talk about the tap, Akinbo quotes him as mentioning the tap, which in turn is what suggests the existence of a palatal tap through a consonant mutation.

Latvian=Halle The Young Prussian (talk) 22:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which runs directly counter to the statement you inserted here. Nardog (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was because I put the wrong reference, it was [1] from Akinbo and [3] from Ladefoged. The Young Prussian (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage" in WP:GNG doesn't mean an article has to cover the subject significantly, it means the subject has to be covered significantly in reliable sources outside Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue is that you attest that the article was constructed through original research, which is not true, a low source does not mean original research, as the only source attests to the possibility of palatal tap, and Ladefoged attests to the impossibility of a velar tap, WP:NOTLEAD should not apply here, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL is not enough to delete a page or move it to a draft. The Young Prussian (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disputing that a 2022 conference paper said that "the intervocalic velar in Dàgáárè could be a palatal tap, a sound which is ... unattested but predicted to be possible." All I'm saying is that that does not amount to significant coverage needed for the subject to be notable to have its own article, or to exceptional evidence needed to support the exceptional claim that a sound hitherto unattested occurs in a language. Nardog (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even from the little reference, there are more sources in favor of a palatal tap than a velar tap, as happened with the so-called "velar click" which was only found as an interjection for "yes" in some African languages much later , just like the locus that contains it on the IPA chart is grayed out to this day, and yet there are no sources that oppose the linguistic existence of a palatal tap, the super-exceptional "voiceless bilabially post-trilled dental stop" and "Trilled affricate" discovered yesterdecade and present in a small number of languages is also the same case and none of this contradicts the creation of a page for palatal tap. The Young Prussian (talk) 23:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, It turned out that I had confused coalescence (linguistics) with consonant mutation, because I hadn't remember the technical term. The Young Prussian (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tap and flap consonants: the single primary source is sufficient to assert verifiability, but not notability. We don't need to adjudicate whether the sound is velar or palatal. Owen× ☎ 14:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tap and flap consonants per OwenX. This information should be mentioned somewhere but not notable for a page. The proposed target appears optimal. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2023 (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.