Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ebonics

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 Keep. In the end, not even the nominator was arguing for deleting this article. The only remaining point of contention was whether or not there should be an article on Ebonics distinct from the article on African American Vernacular English. There was not absolute consensus on this point, but a number of commentators presented strong arguments that the two subjects are distinct, and many other participants seem to be agreeing, so this deletion discussion is closed without any AFD-mandated merging of the two articles. I encourage interested participants to discuss what content belongs at what article on the respective talk pages, outside the context of a deletion discussion. Jkelly 17:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ebonics

Ebonics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article contains information that already exists in African American Vernacular English. The African American Vernacular English article uses the phrase "Ebonics" in a context that implies it is the same term as AAVE and vise versa. Any novel information in this article could easily be merged with the AAVE article considering the terms are synonymous. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Use merge tags and the talk pages of the articles in question. {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} are the ones you want. Cheers, cab 02:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No, It's already been suggested that the AAVE page be renamed to "Ebonics". The "Ebonics" page has no justification for existing.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• AfD is not for content or naming disputes. The article in question doesn't fail any policies. Merge the content yourself whichever way you want once consensus is achieved among the article editors, and ask an admin to do a history merge. Then redirect one to the other. cab 03:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, Wikidudeman, should you be voting on your own nomination? I thought your vote was already implied by placing the AfD template. Pinkville 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - wait until the merge debate ends, before trying to delete it. Also, why are you calling for a speedy delete on this? It doesn't meet any of the criteria. --Haemo 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't list it as a "speedy deletion". I listed it under "Articles for deletion". I just said speedy delete to emphasize how much this article doesn't belong. I didn't use the speedy deletion template because it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikidudeman (talk • contribs) 03:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• Merge Ebonics was a political effort to show that AAVE was not a defective manner of speaking. Anything to be said about Ebonics is short enough to be merged into that article. Edison 04:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You're partly right, Edison. It was indeed what you say it was. But it was more, too. Please read the article, think about what it says, and reconsider. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, merge, and redirect. Looks like the "merge" tamplate has been added, so I'd suggest tabling the AfD as unnecessary. -- MarcoTolo 03:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect - seems pretty clear-cut--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 03:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect. There's only three paragraphs of content, while African American Vernacular English is a whole article. Anything that's not present in the AAVE article could be easily and quickly copied and pasted. --FuriousFreddy 04:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • That, FF, assumes that all within "Ebonics" is part of or very relevant to "AAVE". I'd agree that much of it is, and that's why the duplication is minimal. Much of it isn't, thus the article. Please read the article for yourself and reconsider. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC) ........ PS, ugh, that was terrible wording immediately above. Second attempt: That, FF, assumes that all covered by the term "Ebonics" is part of or very relevant to what's covered by the term "AAVE". I'd agree that much of it is, and that's why the duplication of material in the articles is minimal. Much of the original meaning of "Ebonics" isn't covered by "AAVE" (and it is based on linguistic premisses that for now I'll describe as idiosyncratic), thus the additional short article on the term "Ebonics". Please read the article for yourself and reconsider. -- Hoary 03:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per above. There is no need for two pages that mean the exact same thing. Chairman S. Talk ^Contribs 04:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • There certainly is not, but these two don't mean the exact same thing. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for now, and allow people who are willing to read and think to consider redirecting it after an intelligent discussion. Dude Man claims above: The African American Vernacular English article uses the phrase "Ebonics" in a context that implies it is the same term as AAVE and vise [sic] versa. Obviously it's not the same term. Does it have the same meaning? No it doesn't, and if the AAVE article says that it does, this needs rewriting. (This is not to deny that the meanings overlap.) Any novel information in this article could easily be merged with the AAVE article considering the terms are synonymous. This is a clear demonstration that Dude Man hasn't even bothered to read the article he's so keen to have deleted. ¶ The attempt to delete this article should be seen with this discussion as a background. (In it, I suggest renaming "Ebonics", perhaps to "Ebonics (language group)", and leaving "Ebonics" itself as a disambig page. I wrote this without knowing that Dude Man had already put up "Ebonics" for deletion, a fact he oddly omitted to mention within that discussion. -- Hoary 04:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this article. And, as Hoary rightly says, read the AAVE article and the discussion on its talk page before rushing to merge two articles that do not actually mean the same thing. This AfD has been precipitously brought in the midst of a very lopsided discussion happening on the AAVE talk page and so nothing should be done here before the dust has settled there. Pinkville 05:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep separate I think that the history of the word by itself makes this a keeper. Yes the word is practically synonomous with AAVE, but it has a history of its own. I think that we can afford a bit of redundancy as long as the two articles compliment each other. --Kevin Murray 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If the words are practically synonymous then why can't they be merged into one article? What part of this article deserves to have it's own article that can't be made into a subsection of the AAVE article? I see none.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's hear it one more time. "African American vernacular English" is the linguistics term. "Ebonics" is not. It's a poltically-charged (i.e. non-neutral, non-scientific) term that is used by some for AAVE, but that has other overtones as well. "Ebonics" resides in a political and cultural context, "AAVE" in a linguistics context. Get it? Pinkville 06:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I get it. I get the fact that you have absolutely no evidence supporting those assertions. I get the fact that you're evading the actual question as well. Even if "Ebonics" is politically charged, that doesn't explain why this page can't be put into a sub section of the AAVE page.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Assertion: "African American vernacular English" is the linguistics term. Evidence: Arthur K. Spears, "African American language use: Ideology and so-called obscenity" (in Salikoko S. Mufwene et al, eds., African-American English: Structure, history, and use [do you want full bibliographical details?], p.230. ¶ Assertion: "Ebonics" resides in a political and cultural context. Evidence: John Baugh, Beyond Ebonics: Linguistic pride and racial prejudice [do you want full bibliographical details?], pp. xii–xiii. ¶ What other assertions need evidence? -- Hoary 10:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I asked for evidence for, I asked for evidence "Ebonics" is a politically charged word that has numerous other negative 'overtones'.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I asked for evidence "Ebonics" is a politically charged word that has numerous other negative 'overtones' Yikes. John Baugh, Beyond Ebonics (full bibliographical details in the Ebonics article, even ISBN numbers so you can easily buy a copy): Due largely to its ideological origin (see chapter 2), Ebonics has come to mean different things to different people (Introduction, pp.11-12). Further: The combination of the media spotlight, race, language, education and politically correct dogma soon leapt beyond the political realm and became fodder for comedians, pundits, and editorial cartoonists (see chapter 8), and "-bonics" soon became a productive suffix as off-color Ebonics jokes began to flourish. Daytime and late-night talk shows began to lampoon Ebonics.... (Introduction, p.12). OK? -- Hoary 07:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, per discussion. --Dennisthe2 06:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, Ebonics is a term in political discourse. Differentation between AAVE and Ebonics should be settled separatly, not through AfD. --Soman 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as Ebonics describes a political-educational movement, although it is also often used as a synonym for the dialect. Phonics is not part of the American English article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Ebonics is a political term, and its political context deserve a separate article from the linguistic AAVE article.--Pharos 17:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Probably influenced by the herd, but it seems different enought for its own article. TonyTheTiger 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I am not sure what circumstances an article about Ebonics would ever warrant deletion, but this is not one of them. (jarbarf) 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to AAVE. One is just the colloquial term for the other.--CastAStone|^(talk) 19:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Er, hello? Have you read the article? If you have read the article, surely you must conclude that either (a) the one is not just the colloquial term for the other, or (b) what the article says is wrong. Since I'm the main writer of the article so far, I would not be happy to hear that what it says is wrong, but I am most open to informed explanations of how what it says is wrong. Persuade me. And persuade your fellow editors. But don't, please, simply make assumptions on what the article might say, or on what the relationship between these terms might be. -- Hoary 23:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • And, in fact, neither term is colloquial. They are both technical terms, with distinct - and different, though overlapping - meanings. Pinkville 00:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect per CastAStone. Philippe Beaudette 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Although my preference is to also merge it with AAVE, I believe that decision ought to occur outside of the AfD. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect, merge per above Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep obviously. No need to even explain this. Redirects and merges can be done by the editors of the articles in question. --- RockMFR 23:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge One umbrella topic split into two articles. JPG-GR 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Ah. And what is the one umbrella topic? (Tip: If you haven't yet read the Ebonics article, please do so before answering.) -- Hoary 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Vote changed to merge I'm changing my support of having this article deleted and instead supporting it to be redirected and merged to the AAVE article.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 04:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with that too, as I've explained on the talk page of AAVE. But putting aside my disagreement, I'd ask you to help people coming later to this AfD by crossing through your earlier requests to delete. The simplest way to do it is via the (old fashioned) HTML "s" tag, <s>like this</s>. Thank you for your consideration. -- Hoary 07:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This term has a specifically political connotation, and the articles are distinct. I rather doubt the editors involved would think them mergable.DGG 04:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Please don't clog up AFD with nonsense nominations like this. RFerreira 08:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and keep separate - two different valid notable terms, two different articles. Moreschi ^Deletion! 15:50, 7 February 2007 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.