Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japoñol (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. The rationales for keeping are simply not strong enough to overcome a strong (and continued) reason for deletion. Dennis - 2&cent; 20:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Japoñol
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was deleted per AfD in 2010 as a non-notable neologism. It was apparently re-created in 2012, but there is no evidence that it has become notable in the meantime. The three sources offered are dead links (and the two whose intended target I can surmise are dictionaries). No hits in Google News and only six in Google books (at least one of which appears to be a web scrape from Wikia). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NEO. Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep. It receives detailed treatment in this book: and this paper:, as well as numerous mentions in other sources including about six other books as noted above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we took the treatment in Haciendo Amigos (a reprint of a 2005 blog post) at its word, we would have to conclude that japañol is WP:MADEUP. ("Tres chicos de Peru, con ascendencia nipona, han inventado el japañol." Three young men from Peru with Japanese ancestry have invented japañol.) I do not, however, take that piece at its word. The conference paper "Hip Hop en japoñol" seems to be more reliable, but it is about the effects of transmigration between South America and Japan on music and culture, not about language. If there is "detailed treatment" of this language variety, I missed it. Cnilep (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that the language is not the primary subject of that article, but there is substantial discussion of it there nonetheless. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've downloaded the paper and read it. The most substantial discussion of japañol is in two paragraphs on pages 13–14. But the japañol discussed there is not a "mixed language" as the Wikipedia article describes. "El japoñol como su nombre sugiere, es la mezcla del japonés y el español. ... se tome como base la gramática castellana a la cual se le insertan palabras en japonés. ... revela la incorporación de una cultura, en este caso la japonesa". (Japoñol, as the name suggests, is a blend of Japanese and Spanish. ... into a base of Spanish grammar some Japanese words are inserted ...it reveals the incorporation of a culture, in this case the Japanese culture.) That is a description of individual interlanguage and perhaps code switching as an expression of ethnic identity, not a system akin to Spanglish (notwithstanding the comment that "japoñol, spanglish y japonés" (p. 15) are used together as an expression of immigrant identity), much less a true mixed language. The examples — e.g. "A la abuela le decíamos obaachan" (For grandmother we say obaachan) — in no way resemble the ganbateando blending described in the Wikipedia article. At best, that looks like a case for WP:TNT. But I still don't concede that two articles, even if they did verify the content, would establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On page 13 several words are listed which are specifically used in "japoñol," which indicates that it is a mixed language, not interlanguage or code-switching phenomenon which would have a vocabulary special to an individual speaker. The rapper L. K. is quoted as saying "el japoñol es nuestro idioma, es lo que siempre escuchamos en la casa." (Japoñol is our language, it's the one we always hear at home.) Granted, this is an incidental quote, but it leads me to believe that this is a mixed language with common words used by different people, not just ad hoc switching. By the way, can you really TNT a stub? --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Does not look like substantive coverage to me, a reprinted blogpost and a conference paper. Still very much a non notable neologism.01:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw·


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 15:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. For any two countries/languages, there are people with a background from those two countries, who use bits of two languages in their speech. Unless there is clear evidence of a distinct and established "mixed language" (evidence for the existence of any of which seems extremely flaky) with an established name, there is no basis for an article. In particular, this article contains two example words, one of which is simply a loan word (ironically translated into a French loanword in English), the other of which looks grammatically dubious (ganbaru is the plain verb; I guess that 'ganbateando' means "Go at it!" or similar, which would be ganbatte). This stuff really has no value. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a made up word and no notable is already using it. Frmorrison (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2014 (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.