Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Louis-area 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

St. Louis-area English

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like all original research. I don't know that this is very accurate, and I see another editor has expressed the same concern on the talk page. This must either be properly sourced, or it needs to go away. Friday (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect. Unreferenced and it looks like it has been for a while.  The article claims it is a variant of the midwestern dialect, and if that is the case it might warrant a mention - I can find it on a few lists such as  or some studies which indicate that St. Louis might be something of a linguistic aberration  but I can't get a hold of anything substantive that warrants a seperate article.  What is here appears to be largely original research. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems more like the southern drawl found all over Missouri. •Malinaccier•  T / C  17:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, no verification, not notable. Realkyhick 18:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. GreenJoe 18:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR, would not hold anything against a sourced recreation however.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Call the Post-Dispatch No doubt, somebody else has made these observations about the linguistic peculiarities of St. Louis. H.L. Mencken used to write about stuff like this, and if you can find a source, it's actually worth keeping.  At the moment, however, they're right-- it's "original research", which is Wikipedian for your own personal observations.  The problem with "O.R.", which all editors have been guilty of at some point, is that we have to take your word for it if there's not a source.  Mandsford 22:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Realkyhick's argument.--JForget 00:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a native of St. Louis, and the linguistic observations in the article are essentially accurate, although most of the peculiarities seem to be dying out, and individually many of them are not confined to St. Louis. My mother, from South St. Louis, indeed says "zink" and "warsh", and the "Farty-far" pronunciation is discussed in the second source cited by Arkyan above: "The most remarkable of these is a merger of /ahr/ and /ohr/ in card and cord, usually at the level of the mid vowel. This merger appears to be waning among younger speakers, and the vowel system seems to be shifting even more in the direction of the Inland North." Nevertheless, I'm not sure that there's enough for an article even if it were all sourced, so I'll say weak delete. Deor 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm from STL and love it here, yet this is 100% OR and has no place on Wikipedia. Gamer83 20:58, 14 August 2007 (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.