Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Australian English

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. humblefool®Deletion Reform 01:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Australian English

Encyclopedic content is already on Australian English. This stub is quite POV. It should redirect to Australian English. Silversmith Hewwo 13:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep and expand It sounds like there are authoritative sources that say one thing and real-world exceptions to that rule. Sounds like a job for an encyclopedia ... no? Certainly not POV from my reading (remember that POV and disputed are different) -Harmil 13:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, not POV at all. Kappa 13:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
So you don't find "According to some people" to be POV then? Perhaps "Disputed" would be a better term for this article. Plus "much vocabulary attributed to South Australians is used elsewhere." There is more than enough room to discuss SA Enlish on the Australian English article - in fact it already is discussed there. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some of the qualifiers are poor in style, but where would an encyclopedia be without qualifiers? The references and the interest/controversy (same thing really), shown by the discussion page speak for themselves. Me POV? Never :-) Grant65 (Talk) 14:12, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect — Silversmith has used the wrong term. It is not POV; it simply makes unattributed claims. The main point is that this article is pointless. Everything that needs to be said about this mythical South Australian English is said at Australian English. If and when there is an unwieldy amount of info in that article, the article South Australian English can perhaps be created. Death to pointless stubs. A VfD is not necessary to make redirects. I shall continue making this pointless stub a redirect ad nauseam. Grant65's pet article will be no more. — Chameleon 14:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The above speaks volumes about the psychology of those who want to get rid of the page. As I've said before, Australian words has already been hived off from Australian English due to the latter's size. I have many pet articles; this is merely the latest. I recommend having pets, without them you end up bitter and twisted and go around redirecting pages which other people have created  :-) Grant65 (Talk) 14:42, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Australian English. --malathion talk 15:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Australian English. Unnecessary fork. -- BD2412 talk 15:26, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Appears to have great encyclopedic growth potential, and Australian English is already quite large. -- Visviva 15:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was going to vote delete but reading the article and looking at the source documents has convinced me otherwise. This is a good little article although it should perhaps be renamed as South Australian dialects.Capitalistroadster 17:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great article that has a potential as possibly a future featured article candidate if expanded and improved diligently. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep articles about sub-dialects of dialects are encyclopedic. For example, from the American English article you will find links to articles like African American Vernacular English, North Central American English, Southern American English, California English, New York-New Jersey English, Hawaiian English, and Pittsburgh English. Revolución 02:13, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Australian English is already a large article and this article has separable content--AYArktos 02:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Silversmith. No notably seperable content. royblumy 02:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • By that logic, we might as well delete all articles about sub-dialects of dialects because they're not "notably separable"! Is this not a sub-dialect of Australian English? Revolución 02:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Quick comment: how many of the crtiics above are from Australia ? How many of them speak Australian English ? If ever there was a time/place for those who don't know about a subject, to GtFO of serious analytic discussion of it .... Simoncursitor sig added by Silversmith
    • Define "critic". It is you who want to get rid of the article. And who is to say that other Australians have the best perspective on this? There appears to be great ignorance, possibly even hostility (cultural cringe anyone?) to the very idea that there are regional dialects. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm an Australian, from Victoria. I never noticed a difference between VIC English and SA English. If there is a difference, then it is nowhere near as obvious as the Aus/NZ difference. The big difference in Aus. English is how "ocker" you are, which isn't state dependant. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Gawd...for the umpteenth time, there are significant (and generally underrated) differences in vocabulary around Australia and that is the point. Another is the debunking of myths about a "South Australian accent". (Although evidence has been presented for a Victorian accent.) Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Errrm.....the article is being written. That is what "stub" means. Grant65 (Talk) 11:09, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Australian English.JamesBurns 07:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. Radiant_>|< 10:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Australian English. I'm fourth and fifth generation South Australian. While we have both a few unique words and a slightly distinctive accent, it's not different enough for a separate article in a world-focussed encyclopaedia. They'll make the Australian English article richer. --ScottDavis 12:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
How "different" would it have to be? Are we going to be deleting articles en masse now because they are about things which, in our opinions, are "not different enough" ? Grant65 (Talk) 13:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Different enough to be a clearly distinct subject. As it is, merging this into Australian English would improve that article. This article can't stand on its own without the wider article. SA English is a minor variation on the rest of Aus English, but isn't distinctive to non-Australians. --ScottDavis 14:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep although a merge wouldn't be disastrous. I have previously stated that I thought the article should be merged and redirected to Australian English, but that was at a stage when it was a woeful stub with seemingly no potential. Since it has been expanded upon (though, admittedly, it still has a way to go) I can see it developing into a useful article. I do, however, take issue with the labelling of theories of a distinct South Australian accent as "myths" given some linguists would undoubtedly assert this. A more detailed and referenced discussion is required in that regard. There was previously exploration of "South Australian English" in the Australian English article, but this was progressively removed, most probably because the dominant opinion is dismissive of regional variations in AusE.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Do not merge. Given that a reference book does exist, I think this article is sufficiently verifiable and notable. The fact that many Australians dispute the existence of this dialect is worthy of mention therein; the fact that South Australians might take pride in differences is also worth mentioning. This may say something about the sociology of language, as well as language itself. Xoloz 04:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep ... Australian English is a large article, and sub-dialects are a good candidate for splitting out, as per comments above re: American dialects. --Skud 01:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There seems to be sufficient material for an article. Binadot 03:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (either with Australian English or, if that page is too big, a new Regional Varieties in Australian English page). This is the vote I said I was going to make in the Article's talk page. Almost nothing encyclopedic that could be said in this article would not be better said elsewhere, leaving it as a semi-permanent stub. Felix the Cassowary 09:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that you underestimate how much there is to be said about regional varieties of Australian English. I suggest you have a good read of Australian Word Map. I don't believe you will make such statements once you have. Do you really want to see Australian English dominated by discussion of regional varieties? Grant65 (Talk) 13:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
No, I didn't say that, read the second half of my parenthetical. I think the best option would be a single page discussing all regional varieties of English (you could then put a para there about how South Australianisms are more often derived from Cornish and German, if that's the case, then in other dialects). That webpage you link me to is full of colloquialisms, yeah, but has a lack of things like stras/devon. Should we have an article on 1932 English in Adelaide? The colloquialisms they used then were probably quite different from those in 1832 Adelaide. The page also doesn't have a whole lot to say on other things you could discuss like pronunciation differences. Felix the Cassowary 12:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
(I'd imagine that colloquialisms used in 1932 Adelaide would be very different from 1832, given Adelaide do not even exist at that point : ). It was founded in 1836.)--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The "stras/devon/polony/windsor/etc" thing is there. The site is expressly about words, which as we know are far more signficant in Australian regional language than purported "accents". Grant65 (Talk) 02:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant there aren't many noncolloquialisms on that site (that I could find, but it's not a great site in that way), not that there's none. Of course the stras/devon/polony/windsor thing's mentioned there, otherwise I'd hardly've known of it. Now if the significant thing in Aussie regional variation is words, can you show me why (given the three regions in SA), SA English forms a unit? Just for political reasons, or are there actual linguistic regions for that? (If you can show that, then I might not have such a strong objection to an article on the same.) Felix the Cassowary 13:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
The Australian Word Map site identifies 27 "dialects". However, none of these crosses a state/territory border. There are good reasons why this is the case, such as the history as six separate British colonies (by the time of Australian federation anyway). This set up economic/education/media/etc ties to the state/territory capital cities. In parallel with Jauncey's book there are also publications about West Australian English (also 3 dialects), Queensland English (5 dialects) and so on. It is conceivable that 27 articles could be written at some stage but for obvious reasons I'm not keen to do that at present. Grant65 (Talk) 04:30, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, for reasons given by ScottDavis. Alphax τεχ 02:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Australian english is so diverse that the different forms should have their own pages. -- OldRight 19:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.