Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engsh

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Engsh}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Engsh}})

Volten001 ^☎ 06:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

The article is about a very small variety of Sheng slang but unlike Sheng, it cannot really be classified as a language and lacks sufficient citations.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Volten001 ^☎ 07:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• The CUP book chapter checks out, and indeed covers this subject. But there's a reason that {{user|Marshagreen}} only supported the first sentence with it. It does not appear to support the rest of the article as written, which is pretty sophomoric. It didn't support the first sentence as originally written, as the source makes no mention of the 1980s. The IJSL article cited by {{user|Egpetersen}} checks out, too. All of Dorleijn, Mous, Nortier, and Abdulaziz check out as variously Dutch and Kenyan linguists; and the sources are non-trivial. That makes 2 good sources that were already cited in the article at the time of nomination, albeit that they were so poorly cited (by the wrong authors and by broken bare URLs with the wrong article title) that I had to hunt for what was being cited. I've fixed the citations so that the next editor has less of a hurdle than I had. Uncle G (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• It is not a variety of Sheng, and something doesn't have to be a language in order to be notable. I don't know that Engsh has an army and a navy, but there are sufficient citations in the literature, and I just added one that proves my first point. The article needs work, not deletion. Drmies (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Apologies for I am somehow new in this AfD space and I am not sure whether voting on my own nomination is valid. I now believe nominating this article was not a very good idea though by doing so, it has helped in many ways by shedding light to it and for the improvements made to the article. It still needs a lot of work as per @{{u|Drmies}} and of those with similar opinions and therefore I would request this article to be kept. Volten001 ^☎ 07:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
• User:Volten001, we can handle this--basically, you just say "withdraw", and because there are no other delete votes, we can just close it--it's no problem. I'll go ahead and do this, and now you know for next time. You always need to check if there are sources, and for a topic like this you'd need to look in books and academic articles, which is what {{U|Uncle G}} and I did. Take care, Drmies (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.