Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franponais


 * 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   redirect to Gairaigo. This does not prevent a merge from the history or any other editorial solution where to place this material that may obtain consensus.  Sandstein  06:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Franponais

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability not established. This is not based on reliable sources, and I can't find anything beyond one sentence mentions in a handful of books and articles. It doesn't appear to have been the focus of any serious study at all. (There's a "humour" book of photos of bad French in Japan, but I don't think that counts.) It merits an entry in wiktionary at best, as far as I can see. I would be happy to be proved wrong. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * keep&mdash;the first source has two whole paragraphs on the subject, the second has an entire chapter on it. seems to me to meet gng:
 * &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The first sources is really only one paragraph and a mention in the conclusion - but it certainly is on topic. The second source, however, appears to be about a different topic to the article here. It appears to be about how French words are absorbed into modern Japanese (common morphological changes etc.), not how French is misused on menus and signs in attempted affectation (I should say that my German is poor, and this is a gist reading). Compare the equivalent pairing of Engrish (fuddled English, often used for its coolness) with Wasei-eigo (pseudo-anglicisms in Japanese - what the German article calls Japenglish). The term is attested in RS, but is the article topic?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash;you're right that the second source is more about the technical ways in which french words are absorbed into japanese than about the humor that french speakers may see in the process. on the other hand, the author discusses that topic in a way which seems to me to indicate that it's encyclopedic.  my feeling is that you're right that much of the material (unsourced, probably unsourceable) in the article is unencyclopedic, but the subject of franponais itself is encyclopedic.  my feeling is that given available sources, the problems with the article can be fixed by editing rather than by deletion.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you mean that the topic under the article name "Franponais" should change? Among non-reliable sources, the current topic seems to be what the term refers to, so if Franponais gets covered in future RS, I think it's more likely to be referring to the current topic. In addition, I wonder if the German source wouldn't be best used in making Gairaigo better. This is frustrating: it feels like there's someone's PhD and serious book waiting to be written, but without it we're struggling for sources.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment (again) I've just re-read your comment and noticed you imply that, as it currently stands, the article is about the humour French see in the process of French words being absorbed into Japanese. That's not the topic of the current article as I read it. It seems to me it's pretty much about the misuse of French as French (on menus and in advertising/PR, written in latin script) rather than words such as プチ (puchi - from petit) which are loan-words in Japanese. Thus perhaps I see a bigger difference between the two sources you found than you do.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * comment&mdash;i see how my comment could produce that impression. i'm not sure what i meant, exactly.  i think that i was trying to acknowledge the "humor" book of photos you found.  anyway, my feeling ultimately is that the article shouldn't be deleted because there is a topic or topics called "franponais" that is(are) covered in reliable sources, and that those sources should determine what the article should be about.  since the material in the article is pretty much unsourced as it stands, it could easily be blanked and rewritten, or even just redirected to something else (possibly temporarily) if the topic currently written about seems unsalvageable to an editor.  it just seems to me like a bad idea to delete the thing when there are whole chapters of books on a subject described by the term just because the article is not done right.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There aren't chapters of books, though. There's half a chapter of one book, and a paragraph in another, so far (and about different topics). I would be happy with a redirect, perhaps to Gairaigo (any other suggestions?). I'm confident that in the future there will be RS on (bad) French as a cultural PR phenomenon, so some kind of place holder like a redirect might be a good idea. Anyway, it would be nice if there were more than just us commenting on this AfD.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed on all points. i believe that it's generally considered acceptable to withdraw nomination and just do the redirect after it gets closed, but i also agree that at this point, it would be better if more people chimed in.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There aren't chapters of books, though. There's half a chapter of one book, and a paragraph in another, so far (and about different topics). I would be happy with a redirect, perhaps to Gairaigo (any other suggestions?). I'm confident that in the future there will be RS on (bad) French as a cultural PR phenomenon, so some kind of place holder like a redirect might be a good idea. Anyway, it would be nice if there were more than just us commenting on this AfD.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * agreed on all points. i believe that it's generally considered acceptable to withdraw nomination and just do the redirect after it gets closed, but i also agree that at this point, it would be better if more people chimed in.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 08:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  —DeansFA (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is nothing more than a poor translating issue, not a notable blending of languages. References may discuss the issue but don't make it notable. Anecdotal at best. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:41, 1 November 2011 (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.