Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European English

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP

European English

Note that the version initially considered for deletion has been completely replaced. A new rounding of voting on the replacement is now underway.

Version as of 22 May 2005

Personal project of an SAP consultant named David Jacob, a project whose entire existence seems to be a wiki here and a web page here. It appears to fit "Problems that may require deletion" in a couple of ways:

Original research, with too little progress or evidence of significant support
Wikipedia is not a soapbox, part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
Idiosyncratic, and not in the same category as the other entries on the List of dialects of the English language

66.167.253.48 05:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC) (Anonymous contributor of hundreds of new articles and edits since May 2003; see User contributions For 66.167.49.31 for my first day's contributions)[reply]

Delete Original research. Strong Keep after the changes made by User:Nobbie. BlankVerse ∅ 05:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect it's a promotional article by the originator of the scheme. Beyond this and the web page of the project itself, I find no real discussion of this scheme elsewhere. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV original research, wikipedia is not a soapbox. Megan1967 06:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No original research please. Harro5 06:11, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Advertising/announcement and original research. I was almost interested in the title, though, as there is something unusual about the phonology of English in Europe (excluding the UK). The continental vowel schemes result in a broadened and deepened pronunciation that ought to be studied, as it appears that it is becoming standardized, but then that study needs to be summarized here and not conducted here. Geogre 13:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very odd 'OR'. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very obvious linguistic OR. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:39, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
Keep Looks to me like this is a legitimate project. I found a professor writing on the implications of European English for the EU and Europe in general[1], and a google search for "European English" and EU returns just over 2,000 results. It doesnt seem to be a personal project to me. (unsigned comment by User:WoodenTaco)
Delete I don't know how legitimate the project is (even if it is, it doesn't fulfill the criteria to be a wiki article), but the author is trying to use wikipedia to promote his research. Thats certainly not acceptable. Delete and Merge to Euroenglish --IncMan 18:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
delete original research, unfactual. -Pedro 13:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : European English DOES already exists de facto. In a meeting in Paris, with French, Spanish, German and Italian speakers speaking English they will use some words and expressions that are not the same as in similar meeting in London, or New York with real native english speakers. For native English speakers is it only bad English, but for these European peersons it is European English. I admit that the European English PROJECT is pretty new, and has only little support for now compared to esperanto, but this is not an original research, this is a project to improve this existing European English. Meanwhile I understand your critics, I should not talk mainly about my project. European English should be define in Wikipedia as it is existing today. But do you mind if I mention my project to improve European English ? davidjacobchemla 27 may 2005
Keep : European English does not exclude UK ; European English does support British English : in Europe we prefer the suffix "ise"(UK) than "ize" (USA) ; In Europe we prefer "colour"(UK) than "color"(USA). There is no reason to delete this article, and to censor European English. User:migueule 27 may 2005

Version as of 27 May 2005

I've rewritten the article. I removed the original research and added three possible meanings of European English. It's a kind of disambiguation page now, but a little bit more than that. Nobbie 07:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: With the drastic changes made by User:Nobbie, I suggest everyone should revisit the page and reconsider their vote, because it is no longer the same article that they voted on. It is such a drastic change I would even suggest that maybe there needs to be a new vote. BlankVerse ∅ 10:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep teh rewrite. Grue 15:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. DES 17:23, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rewritten. Original research. Neologism: while google search ("European English" -wikipedia) gives a huge number of hits, most of them do not refer to what article writes, with a notable exception, which I loved. The sole external link in the article does not use the term. Not to say that IMO there is no such thing as European English, while there are lots of kinds of Spanglish, Runglish, Franglish, which is how it is. Also, I suggest y'all to look into "Euroenglish". mikka (t) 19:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- LOOL. I also loved it. :o) -Pedro 23:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten, and possible rewrite some more. Kappa 22:43, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nobbie 09:11, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rewritten (neologism). It could be the start of a new section under English language or a new article (English language in Europe ?), but to call it European English implies it's on the same level as British English, American English and the others, which it is not. 66.167.137.130 09:21, 31 May 2005 (UTC) (the one who submitted the original article to a vote).[reply]
Delete. This is still OR. There is no European English, any more than there is one single "British English". There may be an American English--the language that is taught in classrooms in the United States--but it would be wrong to assume that such standardization applies meaningfully in other countries. It does not. English is too fluid a language to be pinned down. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a translator, I know perfectly well that there is such a thing as European English, although the article as it is now doesn't do it complete justice. What one has to understand is that English is used as lingua franca across a continent which shares a vast amount of legal, educational, technological etc. concepts, which differ from those in real English speaking countries. That's why there are a lot of English expressions used in Europe which aren't used in the UK or US (e.g. "external arrangement" for, roughly, "landscaping"). Zocky 11:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

neutral it is much better now, but I dont know if it deserves an article. The EU style guide can be something that can be useful. But I dont think we should confuse the English used in Ireland and the UK (these people's native language and their main vehicle of expression), with the English used in mainland Europe (just a learning language). Maybe European English article would be just for UK/Ireland and English language in Europe for the use of English in the EU. But please include only factual information (use of data from the EU is a good source). probably, a conversation between a French with an Italian or a Spanish with a Portuguese, etc. will not be in English, but in a sort of a mixed romance language. Eastern Europeans speak Russian, it is their lingua franca. English seems very popular in Germanic and Scandinavian countries, there could be a section about that. It is not that popular in Latin countries, elder people dont like English, while younger people like it. In fact, the use of English/French/German in the EU is a declared weapon in Portugal for the supporters of the "no" in the EU constitution referendum, which the government and the president are keen to make, even after the French earthquake.-Pedro 11:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How is European English any different than UK English? DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is English spoken in countries where is it not a native language, e.g. Germany. Kappa 15:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article does not describe how it is any different than UK English and does not cite any sources. At this point, the article is not encyclopedic and unless some sources can be produced it is not verifiable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:12, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but this requires a tremendous amount of work to make it acceptable even as a disambiguation stub. Nobbie should be commended for his/her work thus far, but there's still a very long ways to go. As for the "comedy" at the link mikka noted, I couldn't help but notice that in year 1 "c" would be dropped from the keyboard, but by the end, it was still there (in "ech" (for "each)). Now, in the interest of REAL euroenglish, let me transliterate: kíp, bat qis ríkwàyärz a trämèndas ämàunt av wärk tä méik it äksèptibäl ívän éz a disémbigyúêixän stab. Nábí xud bí kämèndid fär hiz/här wärk qas fár, bat qér z stil a vérí lógh wéiz tä go. Éz fär qä "kámidí" ét qä ligk mikka notid, ái kud nt help bat notis qet in yír 1, "c" wud bí drápt fram qä kíbord, bat bái qí end, it waz stil qér (in "ech" (fär "ítx")). Náu, in qí intrist av stápigh känfíwzigh pípäl, ái l djast stáp raitigh... :-p Tomer ^TALK 06:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Delete unless someone can convince me the term is really widespread in these meanings. The rewrite is much better, but it still smells like a neologism to me. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.