Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPA vowels chart with audio

IPA vowels chart with audio

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to be an article at all, as such. It is completely without context and these issues have been highlighted by others. Article creator simply repeats 'no consensus' and gives other seemingly meaningless edit summaries. If anyone wants to randomly push buttons without a scooby what they're doing, they would be much better off here <http://www.bbc.co.uk/doctorwho/classic/news/radiophonatron.shtml>. Mannafredo (talk) 07:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is pretty useful, and certainly encyclopedic. The only thing lacking is a decent introduction to provide context. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Recently bundled into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio. Abductive (reasoning) 09:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits, as I think this could prove useful - if it is expanded into a proper article. It could be argued that it is a reasonable fork of International Phonetic Alphabet, in that having the chart with audio links would bloat the main article unreasonably. I almost closed this outright, btw, since it was last nominated for deletion last week, with a no consensus result. I don't see any discussion or change in consensus since that AFD to suggest that this one will end any differently. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added a rudimentary lead and context paragraph, to explain what the hell the chart actually says. Seeing that the main article includes this template, I'd suggest that it could be removed in favor of a See also hatnote on the section. If the template remains in the main article, then yes this version is redundant and should be deleted. But it works better as a fork, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY - I see no harm as a fork, and it's an article with large embedded files, which work better and load faster as a separate article. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Abductive comment above: was already discussed, concluded "No consensus". I noted this in edit comments here and here. Strange that the nom here (Mannafredo) has not read even one of these links. The correct action should be: read the closed discussion (linked twice), if needed talk with the closing admin. This is my third and final reference to a well done discussion. Best solution would be: nom retracts proposal. -DePiep (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close this was just discussed. Waiting a fortnight first would be nice... if not longer. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]