Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Englishes


 * 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 as a Content Fork with substantial WP:OR. A temporary copy can be restored to user space, by request, if some text is to be merged into Philippine English — Cactus Writer (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Philippine Englishes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability. Looks like a college term paper with only primary sources as references. Article was originally created by a WP:COI user. RioHondo (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Article is original and is based on original extensive study. You may refer to the study where this article is based on the Asian Englishes Journal published by Taylor and Francis. There is no conflict of interest. Instead of deleting, kindly suggest ways on how to improve it. Philippine Englishes is a legitimate field. Thank you. Cairozs —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * By your admission, this is a clear violation of WP:NOTESSAY and WP:OR. Kindly take time to read through the guidelines. Thanks!--RioHondo (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. RioHondo (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. RioHondo (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - as per 's points plus the lack of independently verifiable sources.  Dr Strauss   talk  23:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep until article creator has had a chance to understand and assimilate expectations. The article cites Bautista (2004), International Corpus of English (ICE-PH), Bautista (2000), Tayao (2004), Collins, Borlongan, and Yao (2014), Borlongan and Dita (2015), Schneider (2003), Martin (2014a), Irvine and Gal (2000), Gonzales (2017), Bautista (1982,1996), Tinio (2013), Tayao (2003), Gonzalez (2004). It fails to give adequate bibliographical references for any of these, but it prima facie looks like plenty of sources that might be verifiable. WP:OR would be if the user was interviewing speakers and drawing their own conclusions from that – citing a dozen studies (if that's what these are) is not "original research" in Wikipedia's sense. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. What caught my attention was that the article seemed to have been made to promote an individual, which turned out to be the article's original creator. WP:NOTESSAY also says that Wikipedia can only publish an individual's work or research after it has been published in third party reliable sources AND it has become part of accepted knowledge. I have doubts regarding this though, and even with those references cited in the work itself, it could possibly be WP:SYNTHESIS on the part of the writer. We don't know, as there's nothing here but primary sources.--RioHondo (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Absent a bibliography that identifies the author/date pairs, it's impossible to say which of these should be regarded as "primary sources"; but I notice now that this is a content fork from Philippine English, and should probably be merged back to it. In terms of encouraging new editors, I'm not convinced that bringing this to AfD without engaging more constructively on talk pages first is the best way to deal with a situation like this. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The writer has been adequately warned on his Talk page. This article depends a lot on his theories, and a quick google search on Wilkinson Daniel Wong Gonzales churns out very little result, and even he as a student writer/linguist may not pass Wikipedia's notability test. If this isnt self-promotion, this could be a case of WP:TOOSOON? If independent third-party reliable sources aren't provided, even those he's added in the main article will have to be removed.--RioHondo (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to Philippine English: this is essentially a WP:CFORK, so let's merge the main points of the discussion (not the whole essay!) to a place where the community can vet it properly. Not a WP:WAX, but an example of how a family of dialects can be comfortably handled in one article: Bavarian_language covers a group of dialects in appropriate Summary style. --Slashme (talk) 08:44, 16 February 2017 (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.