Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okie Dialect


 * 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.

Okie Dialect
The result was keep, with a merge discussion highly encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. The de-prodder said the presence of a source "demonstrates notability of the subject", but it's not a question of notability (whatever that's supposed to mean with reference to languages) but one of verifiability. The article lists two sources – one online, one dead-tree – neither of which qualifies as a reliable source as neither is written from a serious, scientific linguistic point of view. It's not even easy to tell to what extent these "sources" have even been used in researching the article; in fact, the article appears to be virtually entirely original research based on editors' personal experience and observation. And what do actual linguists say about the "Okie dialect"? That the English of Oklahoma is at the interface of Southern American English and Midland American English, both of which already have articles. +Angr 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  +Angr 11:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have not been able to find the book mentioned as a source (Amazon.com says it's "Out of Print - Limited Availability", and WorldCat lists only three copies in Oklahoma libraries), but the identically named web page less a dictionary or a work of dialectology than a humor page. To wit: "Notice in a field: The Rancher allows walkers to cross this field for free, but the bull charges". There is no explanation or analysis of the language used, and in any case such punning is hardly unique to Oklahoma. This appears to be largely a piece of original research, possibly supported by one or two pieces of dubious "scholarship". (I say possibly since the lack of in-line or parenthetical citations makes it hard to see if there is a relationship between information on the page and information in those sources. I note that there is no reference to "twang" or syllable lengthening, to "Well-known people with an Okie accent", or to "Recordings of the Okie accent" on the cited web page.) Cnilep (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The only mention of Hardcastle's Okie Dictionary that I have been able to find is a blurb in a publisher's catalog calling it a humor collection. Hardcastle appears to have been a novelist from Oklahoma. Cnilep (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (and rename "Oklahoma dialect") - At first glance I also though that this article might not meet notability requirements, however the discovery of a published book on the topic of the direct subject at hand satisfies the criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG, and it is therefore presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This topic has received significant coverage in sources that are independent of the subject. The book (cited in the article), and to a lesser extent the web-page (also cited), address the subject directly in detail - which meets the definition of "Significant coverage". Moorsmur (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is not the only criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia, nor is it at issue here. The sources cited are not reliable; the content is not verifiable. Verifiability on the basis of reliable sources is also a requirement of Wikipedia articles, and this articles fails on that account. +Angr 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Using the search term "Oklahoma dialect" I found several more reliable and verifiable sources including    which have now been added to the article. Many more exist and will be found by the editor who looks for them. Moorsmur (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have checked out the sources added by Moorsmur. All are problematic as either unreliable or not directly on-point. For example, neither The Dialect Survey nor the web page of the Oklahoma Historical Society use the terms "Okie" or "Okie Dialect". See Talk:Okie Dialect for details. Cnilep (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, since Moorsmur suggests renaming the page, neither refer to "Oklahoma dialect" as such, either. The Dialect Survey does, however, break out its raw data by state, therefore including a page on Oklahoma. Cnilep (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The resources that Moorsmur provided seem to be reliable with one or two exceptions. I would argue that "Okie dialect" and "Oklahoma dialect" are almost synonymous.  Okie dialect may refer specifically to the migrants from Oklahoma who went to California during the Great Depression, or generally to present day Oklahomans.Narthring (talk  • contribs) 15:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.  —Arxiloxos (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Southern American English. Oklahoma is shaded as part of the "coverage map" graphic on it. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Southern American English article has a shaded map that includes Oklahoma does not mean that this article should be merged. The real question is whether or not the article passes the general notability guidelines.Narthring (talk  • contribs) 15:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. The question of notability is pretty much meaningless with respect to languages. (How do you determine whether a source is "independent of" a language?) The real question is whether the "Okie dialect" has been identified and described in reliable sources. +Angr 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the the notability guidelines cannot not apply to languages and dialects. For a dialect we are looking for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.  "Independent of the subject" basically means there is no conflict of interest.  Such a conflict for a dialect could exist, for example, if a small group of local folks from, say, Birmingham,  Alabama decide that they speak a "dialect" of English, "Birminghamian", and are seeking to promote awareness of this dialect.  If they were to publish significant coverage in a number of reliable sources (several books) on the subject they would meet all of the general notability guidelines except "independent sources", since they are closely affliated with the subject.  If a third, independent party were to publish significant coverage of "Birminghamian" in a reliable source then there would be no conflict of interest for that source.  Although this example is a pretty specific case that would rarely occur, we are still talking about satisfying the general notability guidelines.  I'm unaware of any specific guidelines for languages  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 17:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Southern American English. No reliable sources can be found to establish the notability (or existence) of this dialect.    talk 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient sources for it being separate. Besides the ones in G Scholar listed above, check additional ones under "Okie English". The standard for notability is not several books, a level much closer to "famous" than "notable".  DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "sufficient sources"? There is not one single academic source identifying an Oklahoma dialect that's distinct from Southern American English and Midland American English. +Angr 07:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep At the top of the AFD you can click the links to search in Google news, Google books, and Google scholar. All of them give results, and looking over the summaries and sources of those results, I'd say it was notable.  The article why it is separate from other dialects.  It also has references to backup that "John Steinbeck wrote The Grapes of Wrath using an Okie dialect for the main characters. He consulted Farm Security Administration reports written by Tom Collins as a source for the dialect."  Some official government reports used this dialect in them.   D r e a m Focus  01:24, 25 May 2010 (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.