Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice of the shells

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 after rewrite. The name can be changed through the "move" function, which does not require deletion. Sandstein (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the shells[edit]

Voice of the shells? Google is silent on the subject. I could see this material showing up as part of an "aural phenomenon" article but I don't believe it warrants its own page. —Noah 07:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Just to be clear, I am familiar with the sound of the ocean when putting a shell to my ear. My point was that "Voice of the shells" is a neologism not worthy of its own article. —Noah 08:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should have gone speedily. While the effect is well-known I've never heard it called the "voice of the shells" (and Google has nothing either) so it appears to be original research. ~~Plus the text itself is unreferenced and unecyclopaedic~~. Ros0709 (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article itself has been transformed since nomination so I have struck out the comment above. But there is still a huge problem with the name of the article. Ros0709 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Interesting that we can all identify the subject of this article, yet not give it a common name. Therefore, if it's a well-known topic, that's a suggestion that it might be notable.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But in that case naming it would be original research. Ros0709 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has undergone quite a bit of referencing since its nomination. Kakofonous (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, but should we move it to a new name? An article named Seashell acoustic effect or Seashell resonance might work [1] [2] [3] [4]. —Noah 17:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few more excellent references from the web. Sorry for not finding these before starting the AfD. [5] [6] [7] —Noah 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is now not the notability of the article's subject, but what those looking for information on the topic are likely to search for. HisSpaceResearch raises a good point: that most of us know what this phenomenon is, but there is not a standard name for it yet. I agree that "voice of the shells" is an unnecessarily vague and poetic term, but, perhaps because of the very nature of the topic, I can't come up with one that would be useful in terms of searching. The ones that Noah Salzman have suggested seem useful, though. Kakofonous (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename though I cant think of one offhand, this isnt a good choice. There indeed are references, probably many more--I almost hate to say it-- but Id expect some in popular culture & children's literature. DGG (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. La Voz de los Caracoles is a 1993 Mexican film. No idea if that's relevant, though! Ros0709 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2008 (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.