Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations (5th nomination)


 * 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. Sufficient consensus  DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources proving that any of these pronunciations are "counterintuitive". Previous AFDs kept per WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:ILIKEIT, and other valid arguments.Sources were pointed out, but their relevance to the topic is dubious, and no one has been bothered to actually shell them out if they even do exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: This appears to pass WP:LISTN and it has extensive spinoff articles, making it also a partial list of lists. This is the fifth AfD, and I really do think it might be time to drop the stick on this and let it be.   Montanabw (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What is verifying the "counterintuitive" part? Everything in this article is blatant WP:OR. How is it notable? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am quite sure I am not going to change your position, but I have stated mine and the closing admin can make the assessment based on what everyone here says, including me. I have said my piece.   Montanabw (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: As I said last time, I don't particularly like this article. In fact I have it on my watchlist only because I once found some nonsense on it and removed this. However, there are people who want to keep it – this is clear from the four previous attempts to get rid of it – and so I think it should stay. LynwoodF (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So "Keep it because I think it should be kept". What about sources? Where are they? Where is any source verifying the "counterintuitive" nature? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, "Keep it because there are other people who want to keep it". LynwoodF (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all related articles. It wasn't easy to say this since obviously these are quality articles and lots of work and care went into them. (And deleting them would be a lot of work.) (And they do no harm to anyone.) However "WP is not a dictionary" and, it seems to me anyway, that information on the pronunciation of words belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss how certain names have counter-intuitive pronunciations. I don't have the time to add them all to this article, but see, for example:   . Many of these sources discuss the origins, significance, and controversies surrounding these pronunciations. I think that this level of discussion analysis rises above a mere dictionary-style presentation. Therefore, I think this passes WP:LISTN. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Information on how to pronounce each name should be in its own article, along with any controversies related. But a list of words based on pronunciation?  I don't see how that has a place in an encyclopedia with a policy not to be a dictionary.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - plenty of reliable sources already provided by other editors Spiderone  10:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So is anyone going to add them to the article, or are we just going to keep going around in circles forever? Or are you expecting to just magically add themselves? If you think the article is salvageable, then fix the fucking thing, don't just sit on your hands and expect everyone else to do it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:00, 13 November 2016 (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.