Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alterations in the pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩

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. There is clear consensus here to delete this title. I think there's also consensus to replace it with a dab page, but that's less clear. While I'm not going to create the dab page myself, there's certainly nothing stopping anybody else from doing so, as a normal editorial function. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alterations in the pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩

Alterations in the pronunciation of English ⟨th⟩ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article looks like a big mess. Moreover it looks like it has content that is duplicate from other articles like th-fronting and th-stopping. It should be deleted. Voortle (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an undiscussed copy-paste combination of th-fronting, th-stopping, th-debuccalization, and th-alveolarization. The creator even attempted to redirect those articles to this one. I'm not sure of the necessity of combining them, especially without consensus. It's like the opposite of WP:SPINOFF. clpo13_(talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral They're basically just alterations of the "th" phonemes, just different dialects doing it different ways. And the article Th-alveolarization was pretty small. I was thinking merging them would be good, but if it is thought to be better to have them separate, let's keep them separate. Turns out merging them was tried before in 2005 by User:Jimp under Phonological history of English dental fricatives and someone undid the merge. Fish567 (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that, I wouldn't be opposed to a merge if consensus is for it. clpo13_(talk) 21:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: keep them separate, make this (or a differently-named article) a disambiguation page? LjL (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per clpo13, this is just a copy paste of other articles. Should be speedy deleted for copyright violation. LjL's suggestion of a disambiguation page sounds good. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then recreate as a disambiguation page. Voortle (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and then create a disambiguation page. 2602:306:3653:8920:50CA:E362:8C03:92E9 (talk) 22:51, 29 November 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.