Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional English pronunciation of Latin


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Traditional English pronunciation of Latin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to be a mostly original research educational essay. Technical and hard to understand and not sure how encyclopedic it is. Seems more like a thesis for a course in Latin. Ridernyc (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the reason for the article was the continuous edit wars we used to have over the "proper" pronunciation of latinate words and names in English. With an article like this, we can at least refer to it for the traditional (Shakespearean) pronunciation, as it notes that there are various other pronunciations used. — kwami (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one find it very helpful as English pronunciation of Latin is hard to figure for someone from the continent who was educated in a country that has clear vowels. It could probably do with more refs but deleting it is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I suspect it may be under-refd because it's not a topic that will feature widely in publication ... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep this useful and scholarly article, although more inline cites would be beneficial. If there a few elements of original research, this one is a good case for ignoring the rules. —S MALL JIM   23:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it could do with some work to make it more accessible and some more inline citations, but apart from that it's a good and valuable article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not sure I see the problem. Sure, the article is technical and somewhat hard to understand, but that is mainly due to the fact that the subject matter is complicated. Stone–Čech compactification is also technical and probably hard to understand for most people, but that is not an argument for deletion; after all, this encyclopedia is not a volume in the For Dummies series. And as to this being original research: it is a careful compilation of the material from the referenced resources, as any encyclopedic article ought to be. --Lambiam 00:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;if the nominator could maybe point to some actual policies that suggest that this should be deleted, i will respond with some actual policies that suggest to me that it should not be.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep a useful tool for scholarly pourposes(as mentioned above), well written and organized. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would help if the article had inline citations, but there's nothing about it that says "essay" any more than our articles on the phonology of any other language. (I would also be interested in a longer prose section on how the change came about, but that has no bearing on the deletion nomination.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful and encyclopedic article.  D r e a m Focus  11:12, 23 October 2011 (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.