Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oronym

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 merge to Juncture. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oronym

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

Tagged for verification since December 2010 and for notability since October 2012. I have been unable to find any sources for the topic under any of the three names suggested (oronym, continunym, slice-o-nym). The book that is purported to have introduced the term 'oronym' does not appear to include the word. A Google search finds only Urban Dictionary and a number of copies of this page. Cnilep (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is weird. Re-checking Google with a lowercase '-wikipedia' does find other sources, including About.com, Fun with words, and glosbe. I'm not withdrawing the nomination just yet, but given my erroneous searches earlier I might be convinced to do so. Cnilep (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The actual linguistic concept, which this is a recreational approach to, is properly named juncture. We don't have it, as you can see. We used to have it, back in 2005. As one of the editors who was involved in the cleaning of the huge transwikification backlog where we lost this article, I'm going to use my tools to resurrect it. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used my tools, and juncture is back in the encyclopaedia once more. Uncle G (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've no opinion yet on the sense of "oronym" as outlined in this article, but I see from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (p. 398) that it also means "a name of a hill or mountain". A lot of the other hits from Google Books seem to be of the mountain variety. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a real and documented term. It's even well sourced. The problem is that the article is horribly written, for example there are at least two sources in the lead that are not cited as sources in the article. It needs some wikification and TLC, but the article itself seems notable enough to keep, at least in my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Juncture. Thank you, Uncle G, for restoring that article. I think these are not precisely the same (ononymy as described here seems mainly lexical or perhaps just theoretically naive; juncture is phonemic/phonological), but close enough for recreational linguistics, I think. Also, as Strad points out, and as I should have mentioned earlier, there is an unrelated word in onomastics, where oronym means "a toponym for a mountain or hill". This sense accounts for every instance in Google Scholar that I skimmed, and nearly all of those in Google Books. On the web, on the other hand, I found—on my third attempt—several mentions of the Gyles Brandreth sense, a set of homophonic phrases. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there is perhaps room here for a disambiguation page. Merge this article to juncture, then make oronym a disambigation page that points to both juncture and toponymy. It is certainly a reasonable search term for both senses. LadyofShalott 22:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above or transwiki to wikidictionary. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2012 (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.