Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English syllables


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 11:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

List of English syllables

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Either a copyvio or OR, depending on how you look at it, and inappropriate here either way. The only internal links in the article are to the source material, thus it cannot be argued that this list assists people in using the encyclopedia. I would support this article being deleted, as WP:NOT a manual of English phonics. Heather 14:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear god, I mean, DELETE - Thoroughly indiscriminate list. Otto4711 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This list has no redeeming value whatsoever.  Clear and blatant violation of WP:NOT.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not only an indiscriminate list, it's also completely useless. I can not fathom a possible use for this article. If one is discovered, the universe will implode and sentient life will cease. -- Cyrus      Andiron    [[Image:Flag_of_Indiana.svg|24px]] 15:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Can you imagine the work that went into creating something this useless? The mind boggles. -- Charlene 15:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure it's all copy and pasted off of the Moby Project. -- Cyrus      Andiron    [[Image:Flag_of_Indiana.svg|24px]] 15:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - I don't even quite understand what this list is. I could get behind an article about english phonemes, but this is something else.Chunky Rice 18:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Moby Project data are in the public domain, so this isn't a copyvio, and since it's produced by applying an unambiguous process to a clearly indicated set of data, it isn't really indiscriminate either. I agree that it isn't suitable for Wikipedia, but could we transwiki it somewhere? EALacey 21:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even appropriate or useful in a dictionary. -Amatulic 21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although transwiki would be a resonable alternative if we had any confidence in the accuracy of the data, I don't. Are there really words in English that have a syllable "zr", or "zsony" (looks more like a Hungarian construct), and numerous others that make the tongue twist, the stomach turn, and the mind boggle. Carlossuarez46 21:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Unnecessary, as well as incorrect (since when is spumante a single syllable?)  Some of these syllables aren't used in English.  KJS  77  21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * CommentI'll summon the courage to reply amid some derisive comments. First, this was my first article submission to Wikipedia (though I've edited a bit before) so if the community considers it inappropriate, I certainly defer.  So you at least have additional information to consider, I offer my responses. (1) I attempted to give credit appropriately to the Moby project and so it wasn't made up or (IMO) inappropriately copied.  (2) I recognize that some entries clearly appear to not be single syllables.  This was because the Moby hyphenated list did not seem to contain hyphen marks in those locations and so did not automatically separate into syllables.  I decided to post anyway because I thought the community might wish to refactor the list to improve it (just as many other articles in general) and because I did not trust that I would always recognize how one dialect may pronounce a word (though spumante is egregious, I agree). (3) As for its usefulness (thank you Cyrus for the chuckle), I needed the list as a resource to consider in inventing new words for commercial trademarks.  By combining permutations of the list entries with some heuristics, I generated some interesting candidates.  I thought this list may be of value to the community, I built it from public resources, and so posted it in the hope of paying back a bit.   I'm not always aware of the reasons for some other articles on WP, but that doesn't mean such reasons don't exist.  (4) I would welcome a transwiki (not sure what that means) if more appropriate, I didn't have a resource for otherwise sharing such a list with others who may care for the same resource.  Summary: In short, the list was useful to me for a reasonable commercial purpose and thought the natural editing approach would improve the list for everyone over time.   RDNewman 22:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Perhaps to Wikitionary or Wikiversity —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remi0o (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Merge the header, into Moby project The project content is mirrored in Project Gutenberg; it contains, among other things, many very long lists  that I do not think we need to copy over into a wikiproject. This list is derived  This is probably sufficient. This one is not included, its origin is well described above, and based on that, its derivation from "Moby Hyphenator" appears to be meritorious original work.  Perhaps Project Gutenberg or the Moby project will host it. They seem the place.  I do not know if Wiktionary considers this within their scope, but it would be a good suggestion there as well. It seems the Moby article needs expansion, perhaps that would be a good project for Rdnewman. DGG 01:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Enshrine as a textbook example of what to avoid. Failing that, Delete. Resolute 04:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per KJS Bulldog123 06:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete please! Clearly a pointless article Isis4563 13:50, 12 May 2007 (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.