Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 01:57, 26 December 2024

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, without prejudice against a merge should local consensus decide so. AfD is not for merge/redirect proposals, nominator encouraged to review WP:BEFORE.  Skomorokh, barbarian  12:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How now brown cow

• Articles for deletion/How now brown cow
• Articles for deletion/How now brown cow (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/How now brown cow (3rd nomination)

How now brown cow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable phrase. — Dædαlus 06:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with Roundedness. Useful information, but doesn't warrant a separate article. Jujutacular  06:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with above suggestion and logic. Certainly has a place in a proper collection of similar phrases or at least a list. Datheisen (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't really like the idea of merging to roundedness. Ideally, this should be part of an article on teaching elocution, as it's probably one of the two most iconic English elocution drills. (The other is The Rain in Spain.) I'm not sure if elocution itself should be the article to covers such drills.--Chris Johnson (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• So if you don't think it should go in roundedness or elocution, where should it go? Jujutacular  21:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Accent reduction looks like a possible candidate, but all the linguistics articles are rather too scholarly to accommodate these examples easily. Sussexonian (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'm always wary of "rewrite some other article extensively so we can merge this one there" !votes at AfD. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Chris Johnson (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete Anyone who wants to know a word should know how to use Wiktionary or their favorite book or on line dictionary. Keeping an article like this just promotes more abuse of Misplaced Pages. There should not be an article for every word in the English language, and there is no reason that this practice phrase for elocution should be an exception. --Fartherred (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above; Not entirely sure Roundedness is the best target, but I agree that a single link to phrases.org.uk isn't enough to carry an article beyond a dicdef. A merge is appropriate, I think. If the phrase has been discussed in reliable sources, and is itself notable, then we absolutely should have an article about it - that might not be the case here, though. I would also be hesitant to characterize the original author's intentions as "Abuse of Misplaced Pages". UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• undecided I regret that I might be taken to have meant that someone had an intent to abuse Misplaced Pages. It seems to me that certain uses of Misplaced Pages are abuse whether the contributor was ignorant of the policies that forbad such use or not. This particular article may not fit precisely the Not A Dictionary policy. After more careful consideration I understand how it might be merged into elocution or roundedness, but I lack the knowledge to be certain.--Fartherred (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to elocution. I was undecided before, but this seems like the best option. A new section on "elocution drills" will have to be written, but I can probably do that in the next few days. I'm not sure this is where this section will eventually end up (accent reduction is a really good target too), but future reorganization can be discussed at the articles' talk pages. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is clearly quite notable and so it is apparent that the nomination fails our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, instead of posting a link to a google books search, link to a specific source which demonstrates nobility. Use in various phonetics books does not make the term notable. The only thing in that list that is anything close to establishing notability is the first result, a single book which discusses the phrase itself, rather than just using it as part of a lesson or as a passing mention as every other book does.— Dædαlus 03:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Colonel Warden. Folks, this is yet another example of someone not trying hard enough to try to fix an article, before nominating for a second time for deletion. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, the above is just another example of someone making sweeping statements about someone else, without even looking at the validity of the point made(the one I made above). Search results do not demonstrate nobility.— Dædαlus 03:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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.