Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigerian Standard 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The result was Keep, the nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ymblanter (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nigerian Standard English

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article adds no value to "Nigerian Standard English". It describes nothing about the topic. A redlink for the term would be better than a non article. All it appears to be is something to turn a redlink blue. It isn't even as useful as a stub! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep legitimate topic and reasonable stub. Many sources are available which could be used to expand and improve the article. Google Books has thousands of useful looking sources, a small handful of which I've identified below:
 * Gut and Milde, "The Prosody of Nigerian English", Univ. of Bielefeld
 * Ajani, "Is there a Nigerian English?", J.Humanities and Soc. Sci.
 * Ekpe, "The English Language of Nigeria", Nat. Open Univ. of Nigeria
 * Wolf English in Cameroon. Contributions to the Sociology of Language 85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
 * Pburka (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Pburka. Dialect of an important English-speaking country. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. So long as there is a genuine degree of standardisation and this standardisation has RS coverage then it is a legitimate subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nomination does not dispute that this is a legitimate topic, but argues that the article is so bad as to fail as a stub. As pointed above, there are sources with which to expand the article, and the stub itself, contrary to the nominator's assertion provides some basic information.  It provides a basic definition; provides prevalence of usage; provides basic history (derived from British English); provides information about modern influences to the language; and contrasts with Pidgin usage.  I'd say that makes for a decent informative stub; a proper base from which we can build a better article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I note with wry amusement than none of those who assert that the article might be referenced appear so far to have made any attempt to so reference it, nor has anyone made a substantive expansion of it to render it useful. I stand by my nomination on the basis that this article has no current merit. Keeping it for the sake of keeping it is banal use of consensus and devalues the encyclopaedia. Make it worth keeping or approve its deletion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As Whpq says, it is not a terrible stub. It has enough information to be better than nothing. I think a stub is more likely to encourage expansion than a red link. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is better than nothing. By existing in this state, a state that says next to nothing, it encourages people to think it is fine as it is. It is not fine. Even as an opening paragraph in a paper it is not fine. It contains no information but the contents is dressed up as information. The only reference link in it is a dead link. It is, among other things, original research. It is not of the quality expected here, even for a stub. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are saying goes completely against our editing policy of collaborative editting, and policy in fact expects that we may have articles in sad shape as they develop. -- Whpq (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Collaborate, then. Edit. And create a decent article. Or opt to save trash. I'm easy either way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Collaborating does not consist of demanding that others edit specific articles or make specific improvements. Editors have various areas of interest and can choose to work in their areas of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you are interested in !demanding that the article be kept with your !vote to do so. You seem to be interested in that aspect, yet not interested in improving it to improve the project as a whole. Why not stretch yourself and do things to this article you feel is good enough to remain when it patently is not in order to ensure that your opinion holds sway? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm baffled by the assertion that the article is worse than nothing. The current stub provides the following information:
 * the dialect is most widely spoken in Lagos and other urban areas
 * the dialect is derived from British English
 * there's another dialect called Nigerian Pidgin
 * None of this appears to be inaccurate, and it's completely consistent with WP:STUB. There's a school of thought which says that stubs are superior to red links as a new editor is more likely to improve a stub than create a new article, as the barrier to entry is lower. Sometimes an article is so bad that the only solution is to WP:BLOWITUP, but this one's not even close. Perhaps the nominator is trying to make a WP:POINT about stubs, but if so I've missed it. Pburka (talk) 00:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that you have brought some references here, to this discussion. Perhaps you are in some manner unwilling to add those to the article you feel has merit? I do like the snide suggestion of my making a point against stubs. So let me remain totally unpointed and open. Editors who just bring references to deletion discussions to seek to save articles that are most definitely lacking in quality and references do the project no good. The point, and not a WP:POINT, is to enhance the project. Save the article by editing it and adding the references if they are useful ones. Bringing them here is oratory and rhetoric, and even interesting, but is of no practical use to a reader of the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What good is done for the project by nominating articles which could so easily be improved, instead? Pburka (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removal of rubbish is an important task. This pseudo-article I chose to nominate for deletion. You think it should stay, brought some references here, but seem unable to add them to the article to reinforce your opinion. By inference you care simply about keeping the rubbish, not about turning it into something worthwhile. I judge this by your selective action. You are not alone. This is a common trait among editors. So many people fire from the hip to show that they have found references and fail to add them to articles. Now I care enough about the article to flag it as rubbish, but am uninterested in anything apart from the deletion or retention process with regard to this article. I'm not about to add the offerings you brought here. But you, if you think they are valid, truly should add them to the article. If you (or others) choose not to add them the inference is that they are not good enough to save it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep insisting the current version is rubbish. It isn't. -- Whpq (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If I agreed with you we would both be incorrect. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - the term "Nigerian Standard English" is well known and has been widely used for several decades by scholars. There are scores of reliable sources for this term and its definition, some of which I have added into the article. Amsaim (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All it takes is one editor with public spirit. Thank you. I withdraw my nomination on the basis that the article now has adequate references. I still see it as appalling quality, but that is a different matter from having references. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2012 (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.