Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salary-celery merger


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Salary-celery merger
Possible hoax, unverified. Google turns up two hits, both of them forums. --Blackcap | talk 12:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Nom removed now that sources are cited. Keep. --Blackcap | talk 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a real merger, it has sources. 64.200.124.189 12:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? Where? --Blackcap | talk 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * (Cox & Palethorpe, 2003) is a source and it's that source is shown in the article. 64.200.124.189 12:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't you remove my words. "Oh yeah?" is not a personal attack, and removing it is vandalism. --Blackcap | talk 12:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, Cox and Palethorpe are authors. An author without a title is not a very useful piece of information in terms of encyclopedic validity. --Blackcap | talk 13:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Keep as references were added --NeilN 12:32, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Article title may not have the best name, but topic of article seems valid, and Google returns many non-WP, non-webforum links showing that Cox + Palethorpe are Australian linguistics researchers (,, , for example), and this genuinely looks like something their research would cover; in fact, says, in a footnote on p 13, cf. Australian English vowel changes in progress in some areas such that "salary" and "celery" sound the same. See Cox, F., and Palethorpe, S. (2001). The Changing Face of Australian Vowels. In Blair, D.B. and Collins, P (eds). Varieties of English Around the World: English in Australia: John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam, 17-44. Proof enough for me.  Keep DS 13:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. As soon as it's in the article I'll say keep. --Blackcap | talk 13:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * verify This appears to be some kind of linguistics-related article. If its not primary research, then keep. Roodog2k (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't much like the title as it stands and will shortly propose a better one, but it's very much a real merger, and very much not original research. Another reference for the Victorian merger is . (All refs so far have concerned the Victorian merger and if they mention the New Zealand one at all, I think it's mostly only as a tangent. I have some refs on the New Zealand merger but not immediately at hand, and haven't read them completely enough just yet. I may do so during after mid-October.) Cassowary 2005-10-01 14:30:37 UTC (according to edit history. Uncle G 14:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)) (yes, it was me —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC))
 * QUESTION You state that it's very much a real merger, and very much not original research but all the work seems limited to the two authors cited as references (and presumably this article has been authored by them or a related party). As such, is it accepted enough to justify inclusion here?  Can you provide a non-Cox and Palethorpe reference? Dottore So 19:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Your presumption is wrong; much of the text was originally written by me in a post on a web forum not too long ago (and plagiarised when included here), and I'm very much neither Cox nor Palethorpe. Cox and Palethorpe seem to have been involved in a relatively high proportion of what's been published on Australian English phonology in the last decade (or perhaps my searching methods are geared towards finding stuff by them...), and I haven't seen anything on the Victorian merger except by them. (But then, I'm not a linguistics student/linguist and haven't read all that much.) I've never been too concerned about the lack of diversity in authorship because as a merging speaker living in a predominately merging community I've made and heard many puns/been confused by the homophony on a number of occasions. There seems to be more diversity on authorship of the merger in New Zealand, but as I say I haven't read much on that so can't talk much about it... —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 23:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for content (title change would be OK) see for reference to celery-salary.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   14:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to Australian English &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that'd be Australian English phonology, but either way New Zealanders might be a little bit unhappy about it. —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 23:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a bit too long to be merged with Australian English phonology 64.200.124.189 00:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge. This could easily be summarised as a paragraph as one section in the phonology part of New Zealand English, with a similar section in the Australian English phonology article. It doesn't need a separate article. Some of it also seems quite odd, if not incorrect (like the bit about it being the only feature shared between NZ and VIC but not the rest of Australia, which I'm sure is not the case - the word "chance", for instance, is pronounced the same in VIC as in NZ, but not as in the rest of Australia). Grutness...  wha?  01:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: How is the word 'chance' pronounced in NZ and Victoria, and how is it pronounced in the rest of Australia? —Felix the Cassowary ( ɑe hɪː jɐ ) 04:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The "a" is as in "part" in NZ and Victoria. In many other parts of Australia it is as in "pants". In SA and Tasmania, it is slightly closer to the "a" in "fall". The same pronunciation is found in the word "advance" - it is often possible to pinpoint which state an Australian comes from by asking them the name of their national anthem. Grutness...  wha?  06:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, real, verifiable conditioned phonemic merger. To those who don't like the name, examine Category:English phonology and you'll see its name is consistent with many similar articles. --Angr/undefined 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no merge, I can remember this being discussed in my college "Dialects of English" course, and that's something, because I slept through much of it. Xoloz 08:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, looks legitimate. The name is no sillier than the foot-goose merger. Ilmari Karonen 23:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Bryce 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, no merge. --Zeborah 02:31, 13 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.