Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near-open central 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mr KEBAB (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Near-open central vowel

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

Why is there no AfD category for linguistics? Anyway, all this stub really does is create an extra step in what the vast majority of readers are trying to do (get to Near open central unrounded vowel). In nearly every case ɐ refers to the unrounded vowel. The rounded variant is rare and has its own IPA symbol. This info can be integrated into Central vowel if anything really needs to be kept. The other vowels don't have an intermediary article like this. Pariah24 (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only IPA symbol for the near-open central vowel is ⟨ɐ⟩ and it doesn't have a defined roundedness. The unrounded and rounded variants do not have dedicated IPA symbols. See Handbook of the IPA, p. 166. Mr KEBAB (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand this justification for why the stub exists, but we're talking about an idea with little to no use in the wild. I've only ever seen ɐ used for the unrounded vowel; never for some hypothetical in-between. If it is being used phonemically for pronunciations there's a 99% chance it will be referring to Near-open central unrounded vowel. And that is the article that contains the useful information (language occurrences and such). Pariah24 (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hypothetical in-between, it just means that ⟨ɐ⟩ can be used for both unrounded and rounded vowels alike. But it's true that the unrounded variant is infinitely more common. Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We also have near-close near-back vowel. Do you want to delete it as well? Mr KEBAB (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid deletion rationale, merge conversation can happen elsewhere. Artw (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why not? There is adequate sourcing, and it does in fact appear in the wild, just not in the English language. There is no real reason to delete this (other than its rare, but that isn't a very good reason). RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 14:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page akin to near-close near-back vowel per the Handbook of the IPA. Mr KEBAB (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've changed my opinion so I guess the discussion is pretty much over. Pariah24 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2017 (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.