Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spoonerisms

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. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Spoonerisms

Delete as unencyclopedic, collective original research. Rather than being a list based on verifiable occurrences, it's just a list of neologisms coined by any editor with the inclination to think them up. I don't dispute that some of them are quite funny, but this is a creative exercise rather than documenting fact. See specifically WP:NOR#What is excluded?: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is ... * it defines new terms". Picky weedier? Cyst of lunar prisms? Tearlach 18:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Possible transwiki to wikisource?Youngamerican 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOT. And btw, Ring Kichard must turn around in his grave for being omitted :-) Pavel Vozenilek 01:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - We get the point after the first 50 or so. "List of mangled words". As well have a list of wrong math test answers. Endomion 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --rogerd 06:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Why delete? Just revert to the original list. Mattroy773 15:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Regardless of whether the content right now might be original research, the article, by its title, isn't inherently relegated to that. For instance, the article could list notable/verifiable spoonerisms, like quotes from movies and famous speeches. I imagine some of the spoonerisms already listed are such, and just need to be cited. --Vastango 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

the article could list notable/verifiable spoonerisms, like quotes from movies and famous speeches

Spoonerism already does that. Tearlach 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Spoonerism lists examples (specifically, those spoonerisms in 'modern entertainment'). If anything, they should be moved to List of Spoonerisms. Undoubtedly, there are a lot more notable/verifiable spoonerisms than the 10 that are listed on Spoonerism. The list isn't going to grow any more while it's a part of the Spoonerism article, due to the convention that an embedded list, if used at all, should be short. Even if we were to just blank List of Spoonerisms and then move over the 10 examples currently on Spoonerism, the verifiability objections of the AFD would be met and we'd have an encyclopedic and verifiable (albeit incomplete) list. --Vastango 03:18, 30 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.