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. Tikiwont (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regional differences and dialects in Indian English

[edit]

~~Original research, synthesis and unsourced~~ I withdraw the nom. Thanks to Uncle G. KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 14:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of an utter lack of sourcing. This article was created in 2006 from one person's observations, and the contributions since then seem to be observations as well. The sad thing is, there are linguistic studies of dialectical differences. Take out the IPA symbols, and it's not much different than noticing that American Southerners make "fair" a two-syllable word, and "fire" one syllable. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source There is material for all of this in the various anglo-indian dictionaries and associated works, but among the scripts I cannot work with is ipa. DGG (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Whatever the article's current state, sources should exist. Edward321 (talk) 14:46, 23 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, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it would probably be easiest for all involved in this article to start from the ground up. For sheer readibility and flow, if nothing else, encyclopedia articles should be built around acceptable sources, rather than written as a personal essay with sources desperately crammed in here and there later on. No prejudice on seeing the article recreated as a balanced, scholarly summation of the information available in reputable third-party sources (that is to say, as an article, rather than a linguistic term paper). Badger Drink (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)_{"Easiest" != "only". Uncle G's work has improved the article. Badger Drink (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep Uncle G has made a number of improvements to the article since October 27, and has cleared up my objections to OR and a lack of sourcing. I hope that others will revisit the article, which appears to be being rebuilt "from the ground up" as suggested. Good work, G. Mandsford (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since has been improved as requested and is really interesting to me (a total ignoramus of dialects like this) and a fascinating contribution for tracing the British colonial effect from pov of an Australian.
Keep but large amounts have been removed from the article since August - why? Johnbod (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure it's because Indian English has loan words, and somebody borrowed them. Nothing has been removed that can't be returned. Mandsford (talk) 12:45, 30 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.