Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonemic Distortion

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. NW (Talk) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phonemic Distortion

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

A Google search for this term excluding "Wikipedia" shows that it refers to a different concept altogether. Also, it is somewhat implausible that such an encoding can be used for English, where most phonemes are sensible to syllable boundaries (e.g. my tie is usually pronounced differently than might I, toast rack from toe strap, etc. ___A. di M. 16:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've seen things like this in books like Willard Espy's "Words At Play" (there was a story entitled "Literate Rotten Hut", or something like that, about Little Red Riding Hood), as well as the horse that was called "Hoof Hearted". It's possible that we have an article about this under another name, and if no sourcing ever becomes available, then throw this out-- but it is the basis for a type of word game. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Relisted as very little discussion as being made here with no real consensus. JForget 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it seems this covers something legit, albeit something that's relatively unimportant. Would be quite a good stub with a reference or source. Stijndon (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the holorime lemma, I'd like to change my vote to a delete since holorime seems to've got it all. Stijndon (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provided it is a valid method of encryption, and I'm sure that it is, but my wife is the linguist, I'd say ~~keep~~, but add some references as noted in the talk page. SithToby (talk) 08:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The examples aren't even given in a phonemic transcription, which makes it look more like a children's game than some sort of linguistic process or encryption method. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per my linguistic-major wife, who tells me that it's covered under holorime and is commonly used in Mad Gab. She also points out that, as a code, it's incredibly easy to break (even by accident!), which is probably why it's not mentioned under cryptology.SithToby (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comment-- the term exists, but it is completely totally NOT what the article claims it to be. Is that a good enough reason for deletion? Drmies (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO yes, as long as nobody has rewritten the article to be about the correct meaning of the term since it was nominated here. In this case, it hasn't been rewritten (as of this comment anyway). Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2009 (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.