Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonaesthetics

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. For now. Sources are indeed available, as listed on the article's talk. If the article's condition does not improve and a strong case for deletion can be made, it can always be renominated. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 00:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phonaesthetics

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Little to no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Existing coverage consists essentially of simple definitions of the term with limited examples. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Categories do benefit from having main articles (imo) and we do have Category:Phonaesthetics, fwiw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it's not a major topic in linguistics or philosophy – nor, I think, in literary studies – it is a topic. Sources exist, and I plan to list some at Talk:Phonaesthetics. I will allow, though, that it is arguable whether e.g. a paper on the phonaesthetics of Tolkien's poetry is primary or secondary with regards to phonaesthetics as a topic. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To follow up on Cnilep, it seems to be a bona fide main article in need of improvement, rather than a non-notable topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, euphony and cacophony must be addressed, but it certainly needs expansion and improvement. --MaeseLeon (talk) 05:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:07, 7 March 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.