Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal sounds


 * 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. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Primal sounds

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research, and almost nothing links to it. Do we really need a page on this? At best, it could be merged or redirected into another article like onomatopoeia.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into e.g. Speech, onomatopoeia, or vocalization if sources can be found as these sounds can and do convey important information. Else delete. Flyguy649talkcontribs 16:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete textbook example of original research. YechielMan 17:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Google scholar has a couple of references to this being used, especially when describing singing. The references don't seem to be published, though.  I'm thinking that "Primal sounds" meaning human noises of some sort is a neologism, but it seems distinct from onomatopoeia, for what its worth.  Either way, redirecting to onomatopoeia seems better than delete to me, because this could be a valid search term. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added some additional information. My research indicates primal sound differs significantly from onomatopoeia. Please check out my edit. If you feel I am all wet - chuck it. But primal sounds do exist and are used today, principally in chants. These chants credit "primal sound" as part of their basis for legitimacy. Lynnbr2 4/20/07. 
 * Keep. The article now has sufficient sources. Herostratus 14:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * &emsp; Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  &emsp; Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete the one scientific source present is a very general one indeed, and the article goes way beyond it. OR at this point. DGG 04:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, despite the new sources, I'm still inclined to look at this as OR. Just because people have recorded themselves grunting at one point, it doesn't prove anything said earlier in the article.  Lankiveil 09:52, 29 April 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.