Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The phases of speech

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The phases of speech

The article is essentially a dictionary definition. Also, I have been unable to verify that the term is used in this way outsided of Wikipedia and the source listed. The results I found concerned speech development or the phases of speech technology. -- Kjkolb 00:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Googling for "Catford phases of speech" brings up a number of solid references that back up the source in the article. Assuming the article is completed then it will be notable and verifiable. Gwernol 00:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I only get 13 results for "Catford "phases of speech", which while it provides verification, makes me think that it is non-notable. -- Kjkolb 00:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Not very notable, but real and perhaps expandable into a good article. dbtfz^talk 05:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy per below. dbtfz^talk 04:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Speech. Tyrenius 07:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Userfy (see below) or merge with phonetics or speech or something; non-notable, and I hope "neuro-linguistic programming" has nothing to do with the bogo-science of a similar name. Also, the article title is not so good: at minimum, move to "phases of speech". Can anyone check the book cited? Phr 18:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• If nobody knows how to merge the article, the move it to author's userspace and leave a note inviting himer to put the material back in articlespace (either by merging or by making another article) with more detail and with some assertion of notability (such as a description of who uses the theory and how it's used). The Google hits do seem to be valid. Note in comment further down that author is on wikibreak til December 2007. Phr 04:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: this appears to meet the cardinal tests of verifiability and neutrality, and is about a theory of speech which appears to be several decades old, i.e. is not original research. Not being a phoneticist, I don't know whether the theory is sufficiently widely accepted to belong here, but the fact that it is apparently referenced in online teaching materials from all over the world implies it may be. — Haeleth Talk 19:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep- Seems OK to me, if someone with expertise in this subject fleshes it out a bit. The El Reyko 21:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but let's relist in a month, maybe, if nothing else is added. I do believe that time should be given here. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I notice that the person who seems to have originally entered the article, had not been notified about the AfD. I left a note on hiser talk page. Anyone starting AfD's should do this when appropriate. Phr 02:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Author's user page says author is on Wikibreak til December 2007, so don't expect a response. Changed vote to "userfy or merge".

• delete 2 months festering as a stub, this isn't adding anything of value to WP. It can always be recreated if an editor can deliver material of encyclopedic value. Pete.Hurd 01:03, 17 April 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.