Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golf-gulf 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 11:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golf-gulf merger

Since this merger only affects the word golf, it's no real merger at all and so this should be deleted. Robot32 18:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. According to the talk page, it does affect other words with /ɐl/ plus consonant, such as multiply; pulse; bulk; culture. However, no sources have been provided since I first asked for them in July, which makes me suspect original research. That's my reason for voting to delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as per Angr. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 00:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? Don't you have that merger? 64.194.44.220 01:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but given I've been trying to find a source on it since Angr put up the unsourced template and I've not found anything (because it seems no-one's looked, rather than because it doesn't happen), I think that it obviously counts as "original research". If you can find any sources, include them! —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 04:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename. Established and widely reported phenomenon, though I wouldn't know where to begin looking it up online. Can some linguist come up with some nice jargonese term like "velar-labial shift paradigm" that would better be used as a title and as a search tool for verification? Grutness...wha? 00:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  Except to the extent that "gulf" and "golf" are apparently homonyms to a group of people for whom "multiply" isn't pronounced "moltiply", I don't think there's anything wrong with the title. There's many others in the Category:Splits and mergers in English phonology category with similar names. (Still, one potential name could be "pre-lateral mergers in Australian English" which would cover this one and the celery-salary merger of Melburnian English, or "English-language vowel changes before historic l" to parallel English-language vowel changes before historic r and discuss things like the doll-dole merger, the fill-feel merger, the vowel-val merger etc.)

  As to how widely reported it is, how has it been reported? Do you mean just by people, or has it been in things that can be cited?

  —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 02:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Real merger 152.163.101.14 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Hey, I know it's real. I have the merger. However, there being no source for this, it is original research no matter how true. I second all that Angr & Felix write. Jimp 06:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If sources are found, merge with English-language vowel changes before historic l Jimp 07:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as OR without references, as per Angr. Tupsharru 08:58, 1 January 2006 (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.