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 kept, per comments by kwami, JBW and Uncle G. ‎. Materialscientist (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voiceless velar implosive[edit]

Voiceless velar implosive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The voiceless velar implosive is used in no language, and therefore is not notable as per WP:Notability. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: @PharyngealImplosive7: It is not obvious to me what part of WP:Notability you think supports your claim that a sound that does not constitute a phomeme in any human language is not notable. I am not arguing the opposite, just asking you to flesh out your argument a bit more explicitly. The article cites (albeit incompletely) at least one scholarly work describing the sound, suggesting that it might satisfy WP:NPOSSIBLE. Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it is not about WP:Notability, but it literally is not used in any language and has one source which is a book about phonetics, so of course it contains info on it. And if this article is allowed to not be deleted, we should make other drafts such as Draft:Voiced bidental fricative actual articles. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable. One mention in one source does not create notability. The policy requires multiple reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article does note that it is a sound made by some humans to imitate the "glug glug" sound, so it is in use and the article itself is useful. Expand and rewrite if necessary. Do not delete or merge. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I checked the source (Pike Phonetics) on archive.org and it never mentions the voiceless velar implosive. Also the source was made in 1943, so we would need some indication that this dated study is not wrong.

    PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Pullum & Ladusaw 2013, p. 100 gives this a lengthier discussion than our article does, and ironically provides a source for parts of the article that cannot possibly be supported by a 1943 source. Uncle G (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pullum, Geoffrey K.; Ladusaw, William A. (2013). "Hooktop K". Phonetic Symbol Guide. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226924885.
• Delete: a sound not used in any language and having one old source isn't notable.

  24.4.108.69 (talk) 01:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • You edited this right into the middle of a list that has a citation of a second, not nearly as old, source. Uncle G (talk) 03:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Still, it isn't notable because it's used in no language. No source can change that unless they prove it is inside a language. 24.4.108.69 (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. IMO any sound that receives an IPA letter is notable for that reason alone, but we do have attestation in language. Bennett et al (2023) Phonetic variability of glottalized stops in Uspanteko reports one token of [ɠ̊]. They find that the labial varies as [ɓ̥] and [pʼ], and the uvular as [ʛ̥] and [qʼ], and that the velar is nearly always [kʼ], but not 100%. — kwami (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe you could help expand the article with this source? 24.4.108.69 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. There are similar reports for other Mayan languages, so Uspantek is probably not unique, but regardless it appears to be an extremely rare sound lexically. — kwami (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. (See also my comment above.) Pullum and Ladusaw (hat-tip Uncle G) suggest that the sound sometimes occurs in American English, and Bennet et al. (hat-tip — kwami) describe an occurrence in Uspanteko, and its difference from a velar ejective. The sound is apparently not phonemic in any described languages, but that does not mean that it is never used; compare Phoneme versus Phone (phonetics). In addition to Pike 1943 (hat-tip PharyngealImplosive7 for the online version), these sources should be cited. The article should also note that the phone is rare and not known to be contrastive (as opposed to the ambiguous "not used"), but AfD is not for cleanup. Cnilep (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Both the nomination and the subsequent "delete" comments are based on the premises that the sound is not used in any language, and that it is mentioned in only one source, but both of those are false. The current version of the article says, apparently correctly, "A phonemic /ɠ̊/ has not been confirmed for any language ... In Uspantek, and perhaps other Mayan languages of Guatemala, [ɠ̊] is a rare allophone of /kˀ/." (My emphasis.) Saying that a sound is used in languages as an allophone but not as a phoneme is not the same as saying that it is not used in any language, even if we ignore the further information that it has been "claimed" as a phoneme for Lendu, but disputed. The sound exists, it is used in some languages, whether as a phoneme or as an allophone, and, contrary to what has been said by those advocating deletion, it is covered in several sources, as shown by Kwamikagami and Uncle G. JBW (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2023 (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.