Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missing vowel

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 was delete. Davewild (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing vowel

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

I'm certainly not going to deny that this is a thing that happns, but I'm really struggling to think of even one reason why it would actually merit a Wikipedia article about its thinginess. All this article really offers is a two-line acknowledgement that this exists as a thing that some tech startups which are looking for a distinctive and memorable name do to invent one, followed by a short list of tech startups that did it — but there's no substantive context provided for why this would be an encyclopedic thing, rather than just a WP:DICDEF. And even the whopping two sources which have been cited aren't substantively about this as a thing in its own right, but just passingly namecheck it as one naming tactic among several. (Plus one of them's a blog — and the one that isn't spends way more time talking about a company that named itself by spelling a word backwards than it does about any company that actually did this.) So I'm sorry, but to me this is a dlt, not even worth sending to Wiktionary. Bearcat (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is coverage of this[1][2][3] but there's not a lot to say about it, so I'd rather see this covered in a general article on corporate naming, for which there are other more general sources[4][5][6][7] etc. Since this pretty much just a list, not an article, you could delete until a more general article is written. Colapeninsula (talk) 12:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original Research. Besides that, the phenomenon can be called by more than one name, so we would have to have someone else (rather a lot of someones, in fact) specifically talking about this specific phenomenon by this specific terminology to have an article on this term. The article here doesn't, in fact, say anything except, "Hey, check it out." What's going on is that the loss of the vowel in unstressed syllables in English has been going on since the Renaissance (well, since just after the Great Vowel Shift), making an "is" the same as an "es" and an "ar" the same as an "er" as the vowel gets lost. Therefore, companies are presuming to be hip by spelling as words are said. (shrug) They were said that way 200 years ago, too. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to have people using the specific term! Articles are on phenomena/concepts/things, and the naming is secondary: wikipedia's not a dictionary defining particular phrases. Read Wikipedia:Article titles. It's also not original research because it's been covered in the media. But aside from that, you're correct. Colapeninsula (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried, and it looks like you put in the effort. If a lemma is not employed, then it cannot be searched. An encyclopedia, whether print or hyperlinked, is an index of information. No one can, and I submit ever would, search "missing vowel." Furthermore, had someone done so, the chances that such a person had in an attempt to find out about "Grindr" would be ludicrous. Now, if we all join hands and grant your licensed premise that "missing vowel" is whatever the article says and articles should stay simply if anything may be found anywhere that coincides with the Mad-Libs of those words, then we can say "it's" been covered in the media. That "it" is which? That companies have been dropping vowels? Sure. They've noticed that. Read Gawker and Slashdot all day, and they'll notice all sorts of things about words and names and facial hair and types of classes and tassels on shoes of tech companies. The phenomenon that is being discussed is not "missing vowel," as I pointed out: it's loss of all vowels in unstressed syllables in English, which is a linguistic phenomenon that is both well known and well discussed. But, hey, if we all agree with you in advance, then I'm sure your conclusions are absolutely obvious. They probably even justify being insulting and disruptive in AfD instead of just making a motion and trusting the process. Hithladaeus (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list for being a list. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if the tactic of dropping a vowel from a word to make a corporate name has a name that it is known by, I'm not familiar with it. When we start to see this technique be mentioned by name (any name) on a consistent basis in reliable sources, then we can consider having an article on the topic. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.