Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ozark Southern English

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The result was Nomination withdrawn as per Deor's exceptional editorial input. Job well, done, Deor! And kudos to the other editors who successfully argued for its inclusion. I am glad that this is being preserved. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozark Southern English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Do y'all think this article has WP:OR problems? I reckon it does. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it doesn't have OR problems: it has copyvio problems. I'm removing the apparently copyvio text and ask that you withdraw the nomination, unless you believe that there are other grounds on which it should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your efforts, Nyttend, but I am going to let this AfD stand because I still see problems with WP:OR and WP:RS. I also believe the reference to the influence of the Branson, Missouri, entertainment scene is highly subjective (considering that non-Ozark stars like Tony Orlando and Yakov Smirnoff perform there). I have no problems if consensus supports your call and goes against my judgment, but as I am reading this article (in its current state) I feel it doesn't belong here. (That's a damn long-winded answer, isn't it?) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I said "unless you believe there are other grounds", so you've provided those other grounds :-) Nyttend (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete I don't necessarily doubt the accuracy of the article, as there are different dialects even within different regions of North Carolina here, but not sure it is "notable" (ie: an accepted term for a unique dialect). It would have been easier if the article bothered to even have ONE cite or external link. And the last part can only be considered original research without citation. I have generously used the term "weak", with the hope the author will take the time to post some cites and prove us wrong. PHARMBOY (TALK) 01:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Kaip Ad shar lahke dis ertikl mor if'n ders ref-run-sus. Kin we-uns haing ontu eet fer awhyl?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is really, really sad, is the fact that I completely understood exactly what you typed without having to read any word twice. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't do that, but a couple of readings enabled me to understand it all. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There do seem to be sources out there that could be used to reference and expand the article, as Google Books and Google Scholar searches for combinations such as Ozark +dialect indicate. Suggest a move to Ozark English, however, as that term seems to be used in a pretty fair number of the book hits. Deor (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make you a deal, I removed my Weak Delete and will go Keep and ask you put up at least one decent citation that you found, and move the article per your recommendation, after the AFD. I didn't think to do what you did, and I am taking it in good faith you are correct in this. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  
      • Donna Christian; Walt Wolfram & Nanjo Dube (1988). "Variation and Change in Geographically Isolated Communities: Appalachian English and Ozark English". Tuscaloosa, Alabama: American Dialect Society. ISBN 0817304339 (ISBN 9780817304331). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
      • Rebecca Haden (1993). "Notes on the for–to complement in Ozark English". Ozark English Quarterly. 1: 7–8.
      • Suzette H. Elgin (1981). "The Ozark WHICH/THAT". The Lonesome Node. 1 (2): 2–7.
      • Suzette H. Elgin (1983). "On Cows and the Ozark English auxiliary". The Lonesome Node. 3 (2): 9–16.
    • In fact, although our article doesn't tell you, Suzette Haden Elgin was an assistant professor of linguistics, who published extensively in the 1970s and 1980s on the subject of Ozark English in her newsletter The Lonesome Node (since published). The Annotated Bibliography of Southern American English (ISBN 0817304487) lists 12 papers by her. Uncle G (talk) 11:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I rewrote the article as a short stub, with references (before I saw the references supplied by Uncle G above). I think that a decent expansion will require some library research, but is this a good enough start? Deor (talk) 12:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup Appears Deor did a WP:HEY job on the article, and it should stay. Looks like all keeps now. Hopefully someone will expand it, but being short is never a reason to delete. Good rescue. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:41, 21 October 2008 (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.