Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British words not widely used in the United States (3rd nomination)

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. John254 00:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British words not widely used in the United States[edit]

Previously AfDed for four times. But this article is complete original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Massive OR. asenine ^{say what?} 07:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Delete Original Research is just the beginning. It is also non-verifiable and "factually" incorrect as a number of the words are used widely by Americans both inside and exterior to the United States. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: could you expand on that "non-verifiable" comment? Most dictionaries do indicate when a word is primarily regional usage, such as "Brit." or "Amer." How would that not be acceptable as verification? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-verifiability is the "not widely used in the US" (in the title header). Basically, although dictionaries will normally declare British or American they don't generally go so far as to say Maine but, not Arizona (as an example). Quite a few of the words listed at present are words that are used in the US (although how widely (or lack thereof), can't be verified. If the article was simply about the difference between British English and American English it would be different but, the list is based on usage which generally isn't going to be verifiable. Either way the discussion is pretty moot at this space as it looks like a clear cut case of snowballing to me. I'm willing to help cleanup the article but, fear that it is one of those lists that is easily open for abuse/error. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - it is open to abuse, and in fact it gets a lot of abuse! I think you are unduly pessimistic, however. I think the solution is to keep it pretty broad, follow the standard dictionary usage notes, and not worry about the differences between Florida and Alaska but stick to a dictionary-defined (dictionary-led) notion of "US-wide" and "GB-wide". By the same token, words that are strongly local and/or dialect in GB should not be listed here, just those that are in common currency in B but not in A - and at that level the standard dictionaries are a good guide. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some dictionaries, such as American Heritage, specifically note regional usage even unto state-specific, as in these two entries. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info but, unfortunately I'm not able to open those pages from work. Don't ask me why I'm not an IT guy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. (Why would bartleby.com get blocked?) They're entries showing New-Mexico–specific usages of farolito and luminaria (and actually getting it right). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It needs tidying up, and is prey to the addition of lots of WP:OR, but the core of it is good dictionary-based material. I see nothing here to change the consensus to keep in previous AfD discussions. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The last AfD was in January of this year. The sentiment at that time was literally unanimous for keeping (excepting the nom of course). Given that I think it's a tad early for a new AfD. Like keep voters in the previous AfD's, the only thing I can say of this list is that it seems quite encyclopedic to me. I'd never heard of it before but it also seems quite useful on the face. Neither of these are standard AfD arguments but I do think they are somewhat valid as this is neither a typical article nor list (it does pass WP:N, for whatever that's worth). I don't believe the list is inherently OR or inherently unsourceable (indeed the whole thing could probably be sourced to a dictionary of some sort). It would be nice if most or all of these entries were sourced, but that's not a reason to delete. It seems that the article is fairly well maintained and relatively accurate (based on a cursory review). After four previous AfD's and a unanimous "keep" vote early this year it seems too soon to be discussing this again. Obviously if consensus has changed I'll be proven wrong.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic coverage of British and American English includes comparing them, like this article does (as well as other articles in Category:American and British English differences. Excessive original research in the article warrants cleanup, not deletion. — Ksero (talk | contribs) 08:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ksero. Good material - if there is original research, then trim it out, but there are several references so it is doubtful that the entire article is that bad. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I think a case can be made for OR as has previously been attempted, as well as for WP:NOT. But the overriding question to me is: What has changed from all the previous noms? Not much. What is new in this request? Nothing. It smacks to me of being, "ask the other parent." Nom it enough and eventually the tide will turn, IMHO. So even though this has issues I'd say keep on those grounds, if I cared enough. 98.215.48.213 (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. At the risk of sounding unconventional, simply repeating the noms as documented in previous AFDs is not likely to garner a consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. A fourth nomination. Nothing new here. Time to give it a rest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Nonsensical nomination since the article contains sources which substantiate its content. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dictionary-sourceable, so not inherently OR. If you have problems with individual entries being original research, that's a content displute to be handled on the page, not by deleting it. This is exactly the sort of stuff an encyclopedia SHOULD cover. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on that last comment: People write whole books on regional variations of English usage, including especially British versus American usage. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't understand the vehement opposition to this article. (Personally, I could go for some Marmite on scones.) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no more buttered scones for me, mater. I'm off to play the grand piano.--WaltCip (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, lad! I'll have Cook put on a kettle when you're back. LOL Ecoleetage (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly viable topic, and I see nothing to suggest the circumstances that existed the last few times it was kept have changed enough to justify eliminating this topic now. 23skidoo (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not ready to make an argument either way at the moment. I just wanted to point out that most of the keep arguments from the previous AfDs were of the "interesting/useful/I like it" variety as well as people using the previous AfD keeps as justification for there current keep. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has references. Common sense WP:COMMONSENSE is also a helpful guide here. --Firefly322 (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a fine line between original research and common sense, and this seems to be very much on the common sense part of that spectrum to me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As most dictionaries include usage notes such as Brit. or Chiefly U.S., there's no reason this can't be sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This seems a no brainer to me - a basic, useful, and interesting reference list for many of us. The fluid nature of some word usage means this list will always have debatable entries, entries that are significant yet difficult to properly source and verify. I guess citation purists will always be uncomfortable with it, and want to harass it. Yet the list wouldn't be doing its job well if it didn't play close to this edge.--Geronimo20 (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not some hastily done WP:OR list. This is a bloody well done and useful examination of linguistic differences, and I think it would be bollocks to remove it.Eauhomme (talk) 03:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example! Without a list like this, how would an American like myself even know of the existence of a marvelous word like "bollocks?" Okay, fine, I guess I would have heard of it anyway.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep consensus seems pretty clear on this one. Speedy keep recommended. DGG (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. As Dhartung points out, content of this list is easily verifiable. Klausness (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone else notice that we seem to be debating the "3rd nomination" when the "4th nomination" appears to have been in January?

I think that may be because some of the nominations have been concerned with the whole clutch of articles on British English / American English differences, while others have focused on just one article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some are obvious British-isms (especially from Cockney rhyming slang). But many of these are well known to Canadians (like me) and we, who are sensitive to the language sent to us from the east and from the south, notice that some of these are used by Americans in their everyday life. I doubt if anyone could arbitrate this list and say in any difinitive fashion that these words are not in American usage. I would tend to delete.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If there are things on the list that are not verifiably chiefly British (or at least verifiably not used in the US, since that's the list inclusion criterion), then those should be removed. Deletion is not a substitute for editing. Klausness (talk) 18:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this is all OR, some of it might be but looking at the External links I see no reason to get rid of the whole thing. Buc (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Still a whole heap of OR and BS in there but, I'm willing to have a go at fixing them if others are willing to help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Each previous nomination has been a Consensus keep. Not a "No Consensus", but a "Keep". Is there any point at which we can speedy this thing along, or do we have to do this every time someone decides to AfD it? Really, I see more of an issue with WP:IDONTLIKEIT then WP:OR. Eauhomme (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good point I think, and some direction from the closing admin with respect to this question (one way or another) might be useful going forward.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anything such as deletion would be a mistake , a tag is enough to improve it , if not now sure after this nomination ...deletion is no alternate for editing , verifiability may be questioned but being a dictionary supported one citations or such is possible in due course . AFD any time or any amount of time would not succeed , the overall opinion shows the same .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep— Why this legitimate list keeps being nominated is beyond me, but it belongs. As seen on the talk page, we have proposed to use a good dictionary for sources, and are currently getting to that. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. Give this article a chance to grow. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 05:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.