Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhoticism and rhotacism

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. - Mailer Diablo 03:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhoticism and rhotacism

It would be more appropriate as a mention on one of the pages it mentions, or as a note in teh linguistics article Esprit15d 19:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I agree entirely. It's a bit frivolous to dedicate a whole article to a pair of mistaken words. iinag 20:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. —Preost ^talk contribs 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep. They are commonly confused. 64.194.44.220 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not only because it's not an encyclopedia article, but because it's not even accurate. There is no word rhoticism. Rhotacism is as defined on the page; the phenomenon of r-coloring of vowels is called rhotacization, and the property that English accents have of being rhotic or nonrhotic is (if a noun is needed for this) rhoticity. --Angr (t·c) 21:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If there's no word rhoticism, then why do we have a redirect for it. 64.194.44.220 21:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • We often have prophylactic redirects for things that people erroneously think are the correct spellings of article titles, and would create duplicate articles for if the redirects were not there. We have this redirect because the article was created at a bad title. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, Angr, you're wrong. There is a word rhoticism. Check googol http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rhoticism&btnG=Google+Search 64.194.44.220 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There are all sorts of words findable by Google searches that don't exist (to be more specific, that aren't established terms with agreed-upon meanings, which is what I meant by "there is no word rhoticism" above). I can find no evidence of an established term rhoticism in any dictionaries or linguistics books. It's either a misspelling of rhotacism or a misunderstanding of either rhotacization or rhoticity. --Angr (t·c) 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • You aren't really helping your case by asking Angr to "Check googol". Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Macrakis 21:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (it's a non-scientific shibboleth) --Pasquale 23:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete An article devoted to two words commonly confused is a waste unless there is something notable about the confusion. There is nothing notable here. To make matters worse, one of these is not a word at all but merely a misspelling. Are we about to have articles for every common misspelling? Jimp 00:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No. But Wiktionary will happily address both usage conflations and mis-spellings that have become so widespread that they satisfy the criteria for being attested words. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
• There's no such subject for an encyclopaedia article, because there's no such word, and thus no such conflation, in the first place. Even if there were such a conflation, it would have to be the subject of significant discussion for it to warrant more than a section on usage in the appropriate Wiktionary article(s). Delete. Uncle G 03:00, 21 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.