Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words in English without A, E, I, O or U

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. I have noticed that several have argued for merging the article to English words without vowels. I am declining to do this for the objective reason that some others provided: namely that the words on the list contain the letter "Y" being used as a vowel, and therefore cannot belong on a list of words without vowels. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of words in English without A, E, I, O or U[edit]

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

As Cruxdestruct wrote in a proposal for deletion, the inclusion criteria for the list of words appear arbitrary. The article does explain that "y" and (especially in Welsh loanwords) "w" can represent vowel sounds, but that information is also in Vowel#Written_vowels and the list of words isn't necessary to illustrate the point. This strikes me as trivia rather than an encyclopedic topic. —rybec 03:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as arbitrary. Cwm on now, why oh why are words without y excluded?Clarityfiend (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to English words without vowels. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I believe this list was WP:Split out of English words without vowels for reasons of length? If the list is complete and exhaustive, then it provides important information for that article, and should be kept or re-merged, and improved, similar to the Featured List of English words containing Q not followed by U. If it is not anywhere near complete, and is merely a list of examples, then moving it to Wiktionary might be a better idea. I've left a neutral pointer at Talk:English words without vowels. –Quiddity (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (No doubt automated) original research galore. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glue back onto English words without vowels - There is no chance that the list of words will move anywhere past a stub without its parents. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the talk page there's a comment explaining this article's origin:
This page is part of a series and its objective is to stop IP users constantly and haplessly adding words to English words with uncommon properties being a computer generated list from wiktionary [...]

That other article was deleted after an AfD. —rybec 01:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and don't merge. This is far too trivial even for the parent article (which is already bad enough without it). This is essentially a "list of words whose only vowel letter is <y>, plus a list of random loanwords from Welsh", and hence a breach of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no matter whether it's in a standalone article or in the parent article. Words spelled only with <y> are no more special and no more noteworthy than words spelled only with <e> or only with <u>; the whole premise of this page, that <y> is special in this role because it's "not really a vowel", is an absurd amateurish misunderstanding made by people who can't tell apart the logical levels of orthography and phonology. The whole perspective of both pages is simply wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I've merged 3 "non-y" words to the injections list at English words without vowels. I generally agree with Fut.Perf. - my only remaining concern is whether any of the prose in the current lede, might be worth preserving elsewhere? Otherwise, it's ready to be deleted/redirected. –Quiddity (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Future Perfect, who sums up my feelings on the article's problems. Them From Space 21:33, 24 July 2013 (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.