Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engrish (2nd nomination)

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 Snow Keep. There are several reliable sources in the article, and there have been no arguments for deletion except for the nominator. (non-admin closure) Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Engrish (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)

There No such term, it is a racist slang. There is No valid RS to support this except a South Park Episode and some racist sites. This is simply classified as "bad" or "poor" grammar (not Engrish) and maybe offensive to some people. Tyros1972 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 20. Snotbot  t • c »  08:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Wikipedia is not censored against "racist" slang. The sources in the article include several reliable books. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of the alleged sources have a link, except "South park" which never even mentions the word "Engrish".Tyros1972 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very common racist crap. Place in the right context you have a good article. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW keep - under WP:CENSORED and WP:POINT, clearly well-referenced and is notable enough to warrant an article in its own right. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 12:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 14:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my reason, there is no such term and none of the sources are reliable since they don't even have links, except South Park which never once mentions the word "Engrish". Tyros1972 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References don't have to have links to be legitimate. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's well written and well sourced. It could be perceived as racist, but Wikipedia is not correct and WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT is not a legitimate deletion argument. If the article spawns racist arguments on the talk page, then that will be dealt with when it happens. Pre-emptive deletion, or even protection is overreacting. TheOneSean | Talk to me 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Like the other articles listed in this article's 'See also' section e.g. Chinglish, Singlish and Tinglish, the article itself, far from being racist, is well-written and informative with reliable, relevant sources to justify its retention.--Zananiri (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are just as meaningless as it is all simply "Incorrect Grammar" show me one reliable dictionary that mentions ANY of these silly slangs. Tyros1972 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - multiple high quality reliable sources, including articles in a journal published by Cambridge University Press. Tyros, you seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that sources must be available online to be considered reliable; please read Wikipedia:Offline sources and WP:SOURCEACCESS. LadyofShalott 02:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - interestingly, a number are easy to find online, as added. Chris857 (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Academically sourced term [1][2] referring to incorrectly pronounced English from poorly translated Japanese phrases. The term "Japlish" which redirects to this article is mentioned in both OED [3] and Collins [4]. There might be a case for WP:DICDEF if it were a single sentence but it clearly contains more information than its Wiktionary entry. Funny ^Pika! 07:53, 21 May 2013 (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.