Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglish


 * 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. John254 03:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Anglish

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No_original_research

What on Earth is this? I've never heard of this use of the phrase Anglish before. The only times I have heard it is with respect to the Angles or very occasionally amongst Northumbrian/Geordie nationalist types. The main source is a geocities page, total OR.--Him and a dog 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It gets a mention in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language . &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Hofstadter books cited are real, and Laura Scudder's reference confirms the Jennings one. No reason to suppose this is a hoax, and the references are adequate to support it. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - There are many other usages but this one seems sound. Just don't go calling it a portmanteau as this wouldn't be Anglish. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've never heard of it either, but it seems well sourced and doesn't read like OR. Scog (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I concede that I've never heard it called this, but I'm familiar with the linguistic concept of trying to use only those words that have Anglo-Saxon roots, and avoiding those that have Latin, Greek, etc. roots. Review of Google and Google Books indicates that this is what it's called.  Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, so you haven't heard the phrase before, but we have an article on it with references (see the section called Bibliography). That isn't original research, and your not having heard of it is why there's an encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for comments like that, Dhartung. Mandsford (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not having heard of something is not much of a deletion rationale. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, let me give you an English lesson... "K-E-E-P" doesn't spell delete. Yes, I know, your reason for wanting to keep the article is way better than mine, but for purposes of the debate... nobody fucking cares.  Mandsford (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The primary source being a geocities page where someone is creating Anglish as a project. That's what marks this out as a bit iffy. The bibliography means nothing for proving its real; I doubt most of us have access to all of those books, it'd be perfectly easy to just make claims there. --Him and a dog 13:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If the external links were sources, I'd think they'd be in a references section. The Anderson article certainly exists, and you can confirm for yourself that "Ander-Saxon" appears in the index of Le Ton Beau de Marot .  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 14:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * that link doesn't allow access.--Him and a dog 15:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we can't have any articles that rely on paper sources? &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 14:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * External links are just that, external links. It is not labeled as a source. Have you attempted to determine whether any of the sources are bogus, or are you just asking if they need to be checked out? We have citecheck for that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. While the term may be a neologinsm, the phemomenon exists and has analogs in other languages. It is an extreme form of language purism. `'Míkka>t 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. An interesting subject, well worth an article (though I think it is usually more humorous than "an extreme form of language purism"). RobinCarmody (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2008 (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.