Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/English 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The result was nomination withdrawn, since this is not a request for deletion; discussion moved to Talk:English English, where it actually belongs. Non-admin closure. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] English English

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

Probably a neologism- merge to British English or rename to English language in England. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 08:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Rename to English dialects of English and link from the relevant section of British English. While the article does provide reliable sources for the use of the term, the article is about dialects, not the language itself. JulesH 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - seems like more than a neologism, or if anything a very, very well researched something. It makes some sense as British English might be called English English in Britain (much like how football is football, not soccer in the United States.) Guroadrunner 08:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Football is football in England as well. 58.164.28.146 08:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant Football is NFL, not soccer. Guroadrunner 09:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy close (quickly, before someone starts making horrible Little Caesars jokes). I don't see anyone (including the nominator) calling for deletion here, and the article is reasonable well-sourced. Continue this discussion at Talk:English English or WP:RM if necessary. cab 09:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, well referenced. Englishrose 09:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you cite reputable academic sources that talk about "English English"? If you can't and it turns out that it is a neologism it should definitely be renamed or merged. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • OK I now see the article claims that the phrase has been used in academic circles since the publication of Language in the British Isles in 1984 but I actually can't see any citation for that. However I still think the term is confusing and the alternative term "English in England" would seem more precise. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 10:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep + maybe rename. I'm a linguist and I've never hears of such an umbrella term for English dialects. I'm certainly not up do date in English dialectology research, but "English English" sounds like a neologism to me. Experts such as Daniel Jones, David Crystal or Steven Pinker have never used it AFAIK. I'd like to see a reliable source indicating such usage. Anyway, the article itself is excellent. --Targeman 12:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to English language in England. The notability of the topic is in doubt, but the term appears to be insufficiently established, and it's also downright confusing. Mowsbury 12:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to [[English language in England (or other title) and speedy keep per "cab" above. There's no need to delete this article. It's well-developed with ample discussion and references. Shalom ^Hello 13:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but rename correctlyTaprobanus 14:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep There is no need whatsoever for this article to even be propsed for deletetion, as it is a perfectly valid article, with valid sources, and discusses in depth the various regional dialects. Re-naming it might be a option, but just to propose this article for deletion which is what the proposal is for no matter what is said above by the nominator - no. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per JulesH or perhaps Mowsbury; adjust text accordingly. Title conforms to "X English", like dialects Scottish English, Welsh English, Manx English, American English etc., but I agree the current title sounds silly, and is unsourced as a scholarly term. — mholland (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to something (perhaps English language in England as nominated). The subject is noteworthy and many reliable sources exist for it, the title is unfortunate. Carlossuarez46 20:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename, just because it has a bad name does not make the topic a neologism. I slightly prefer English dialects of England but English language in England is acceptable. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Do Not Rename. The term English English is currently preferred by most linguists, notably Peter Trudgill (see e.g. his book International English, where the term English English is used all the time.) ISBN 0-340-80834-9, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber

And I suggest that this article be nominated for deletion instead---completely unsourced; the term is never used by linguists (since it makes little sense), it just gets about 300 independent Google hits---it fails WP:N anyway. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or rename I've never heard of 'English English' but I can see how it might be a generic term for all regional dialects in England. Perhaps rename to English dialects. The article looks pretty good to me, no reason to delete. --Malcolmxl5 23:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oh, I see we have an redirect named English dialects]. --Malcolmxl5 23:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"English dialects" means "dialects of the English language" (not only England, but also Scotland, North America, Australia, etc.) "English English" is the term currently used by Trudgill and other linguists; see Trudgill and Hannah, International English, pp. 1-2. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've done some research. It would seem that English English is not a neologism after all, Trudgill introduced the term in a book of his way back in 1984. The problem is, Trudgill seems to crop up almost every time the term is mentioned. So I still have my doubts about the widespread use of this term by scientists other than Trudgill. I myself have studied under a renowned linguist and I've worked as a teacher and translator but every time I've heard "English English", it was delivered with air quotes. Conclusion: I wouldn't insist on renaming the article that much now. But if the name stays, we'd need plenty of redirect options because most people are unaware of this term.--Targeman 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What little ceasar speaks? ~ Infrangible 01:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename - but - this appears to overlap with the articles referenced by List of dialects of the English language. It will be a major undertaking to reconcile these parallel streams of documentation. Acroterion _(talk) 01:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Keep Even the nominator suggests merging this rather than deleting it, so if not keep-keep, then merge merge. ~ Mandsford Mandsford 02:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close - not a deletion request. 70.55.88.166 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Listen. Since it's pretty clear that we ain't got *nothing* to delete, I suggest that this nomination be closed and the discussion moved to Talk:English English, where it actually belongs. ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hear, hear!--Targeman 18:35, 17 July 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.