Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Mexican 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 no consensus. Sandstein 19:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Mexican English

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Under Wikipedia's Reasons for Deletion, this article meets #7, "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" and #8 "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline." Here are specifics:

Though several sources have been referenced here by previous users, their reliability or relevance is mostly weak or plain absent (some cited sources simply don't even address the information they're supposed to be verifying, while much of the information seems to have no citations whatsoever); furthermore, none of the sources here actually seems to use the term "New Mexican English" or even imply it, except one Encyclopedia.com article, which uses the term "New Mexico English" in a single sentence, to vaguely refer to "a mixture of dominant Midland [English], with some Northern features... and Southern and South Midland features." This source does mention six phrases used in New Mexico (mostly borrowings from other dialect regions, and some from Spanish), but this alone certainly does not confirm a local variety of English that is its own separate or significantly distinct and notable dialect. Where is all the linguistics research on this topic? This brings me to my next concern...
No linguistic or other scholarly resources have been found by myself or previous users that delineate a uniquely New Mexican form of English. Major works on regional varieties of American English, for example, like William Labov et al's Atlas of North American English, are noticeably silent on New Mexico.
Most of the lexical and phonological characteristics mentioned on the WP article suspiciously match those exactly mentioned in a pair of viral YouTube comedy videos: "Shit Burqueños (New Mexicans) Say." The listed terms and pronunciations (that supposedly define this English variety) cannot be found anywhere credible online, even with a quick Google search. The videos themselves give a view of a "New Mexican" accent that the creators have admitted are exaggerated at best.
One source used here (Busby 2004, pp. 270-1) merely talks about a general Southwest English, and other than giving a brief history of linguistic intermixing in the region, gives no actual evidence of significant linguistic uniqueness in New Mexico today; it does, however, refer to a Spanish-influenced variety, Chicano English, which already has its own Wikipedia page. Wolfdog (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as both a New Mexican and a linguist, I assure you that the topic is notable and can be sourced. Skyerise (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skyerise Can you provide info about said sources? —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few:

Reading America: New Perspectives on the American Novel. ISBN 9781847187772
Problems in applied educational sociolinguistics: readings on language and culture problems of United States ethnic groups ISBN 9027977267
"A milestone study: Structured variability as the key to unraveling (contact-induced) language change" in Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Characteristic features of New Mexico English between 1805 and 1890, WA Heflin - 1941 - University of Chicago

Here's a link to the above one for anyone to check out, with thanks to 75.173.98.22. Wolfdog (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible you could give any kind of a gist of what these sources contribute to the concept of a New Mexican English? Wolfdog (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need more information about what these sources say. The one with the link appears to simply discuss bilingualism, as do the links on the article. There is nothing whatsoever to suggest New Mexico English exists; nor is there significant coverage of it as a proposed dialect. Is there anything that suggests there is a substantial difference between New Mexico English and Arizona English? or Texas English? The study that lists pronunciation isn't sufficient, as there is no indication there is anything notable about the pronunciation ie there is any significant variation that is unique to New Mexico. It would also be nice to have some sort of context for "Characteristic features of New Mexico English between 1805 and 1890." I'm not sure if this is a thesis or what, or if, like the pronunciation study, it is just documenting the English there. For something as major as a dialect of American English, there should be extensive resources, and this is failing hard. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep Per references. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In spot checking the references I came to the opinion that some of them do not feature this topic as their subject. If someone shared the best 2-3 sources then I might reconsider. Right now some of the sources are passing mentions or otherwise are not typical WP:RS for establishing WP:GNG. The topic may be notable but it is not obvious that this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 01:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails verifiability as well as notability. The article seemsto be original research and handwaving assertions, with some references which do not even mention the supposed dialect, or which make only passing reference. Edison (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per references provided by the New Mexican above. SilverSurfingSerpent (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain what the references provided actually do to lend credibility to a New Mexican English variety? Wikimandia claims to have reviewed the sources, deciding that they aren't sufficient and do "nothing whatsoever to suggest New Mexico English exists." Blue Rasberry also claims to have spot-checked them, even concluding that "some of them do not feature this topic as their subject." What more can you add to this discussion to bolster your side? Wolfdog (talk) 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The delineation of language dialects is difficult, especially at the level of a microchasms like the Southwestern United States, which contains multiple English language variants including varieties like Navajo English. I agree with Blue Rasberry that "The topic may be notable but it is not obvious." And, I think, they might might agree with this assessment; as seen in the "Assistant Professor & Coordinator of Sabine Ulibarri Spanish as a Heritage Language Program at the University of New Mexico", "International Journal of Bilingualism", and the exaggerated comedy viral videos, there is a clear interest in this particular dialect. The terms "or what", "land down", "oh si", and "omber" are all mentioned in the Spanish as a Heritage Language Program citation and the comedy videos. Another smaller assessment I can make is the example of Montano, being pronounced with an "ñ" sound, which definitely not standard American English. Spot-checking languages is difficult as they can get very oddly delineated, "New Mexican English" may not be the only term this dialect falls under, but this terminology is preferred under WikiProject Languages, so we don't end up with multiple articles about the same language, imagine; Burqueño English, Eastern Southwestern American English, Southern New Mexican English, Northern New Mexico English, English in New Mexico, Southern Colorado speech, the English language as it is used in Western Texas and west of Texas, etc. You catch my drift, we don't want that, lol. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, I've discovered that the act of creating, as well as most of the editing, of this article, has been done by a user now blocked for sockpuppetry: see more here. The user appears to be connected with a business called "Heaven Sent Gaming," which also has an article called "New Mexican English" that I nearly allowed to stand as a potentially credible source; now I have enough doubt to keep it off of Wikipedia. Here is the website; feel free to try to get a sense of its credibility, though I can't think of any solid, quick ways to test it: http://newmexico.heavensentgaming.com/lexicon/new-mexican-english/. Wolfdog (talk) 19:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry is a fairly common with organizations, and is not grounds for banning using them as a source, if they have credible sources. Unless we are to ban sources from the the United States Congress, Church of Scientology, or, another New Mexican company, Blake's Lotaburger. That source in question states that it is "a New Mexico cultural encyclopedia, lexicon, and news." I would agree with its removal if it were unreliable, however the website cites its sources and is not user-editable, meaning that it should be fine as long as its not overly referenced. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about banning the source. I'm talking about avoiding it. A website's calling itself an "encyclopedia" certainly doesn't make it genuine in any academic sense, and actually I can see nowhere that the site lists its sources. In fact, I'm becoming increasingly suspicious of that site due to its own sockpuppetry scandal on Wikipedia, which I've dug up at this location. Let's just avoid it. If there is evidence for the "Keep" side of this discussion, I'm sure it can be stronger than that. Wolfdog (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 75.173.98.22, your contributions reveal somewhat questionable canvassing tactics, since you've defied the guideline on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion (under subsection "Notifying substantial contributors to the article") that states: "One should not notify bot accounts, people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits, or people who have never edited the article" (my emphasis). Please be careful to keep this discussion as impartial as possible. Wolfdog (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! And according to Joseph2302's striking out of the sock comment, we do, as I worried, have sockpuppets involved in this discussion. Now what do we do? Wolfdog (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea- they weren't specifically a sockpuppet for this AfD, but have commented in quite a few (I decided to help someone else who was striking their comments from AfDs). Joseph2302 (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sockpuppetry does not seem to be related to the article itself, we should be fine. I believe that this article has enough merit to continue building the article without deletion. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is not canvassing, and is standard practice here on Wikipedia to notify interested parties. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did you know they were interested parties if they've never edited the page? I've just quoted the Wikipedia page's guidelines. Did I interpret it out of context? Wolfdog (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

keep as per Notability requirements. 76.113.82.215 (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Like others before you, I'm going to ask, could you please explain a little further your thoughts? We still seem to be a long way from consensus and we need some more robust discussion. Wolfdog (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not vote if you have no user name. Which is why I have not voted. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was all set to say "delete" - thinking "come on, are we going to have articles about the dialect in every state in the country?" Well, it turns out we pretty much do; see Category:American English. I checked a couple of articles in that category and found they have no better references than this article. Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF. I also did a search at Google Scholar and found the term "New Mexican Engilsh" used in a book and a scholarly article[1] so local and regional dialects like this do appear to be a real subject of scholarly study, which has inspired many articles at Wikipedia. The article could use some work ("coyote" as a distinctively New Mexican word? Come on!) but that's not a reason to delete it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, dialects like this. But this one itself? We've above discussed (briefly) how the two articles you've found on Google Scholar don't seem to actually define a New Mexican dialect. And obviously, your "otherstuff" articles should also be vetted. (Are there any ones you specifically think seem insignificant?) Wolfdog (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason that this one itself shouldn't have an article? As far as I can tell there are no Wikipedia articles detailing any of the accents or dialects of the American Southwest. This one, at the least, has mentions in academic research papers. You keep bringing up that the articles on Google scholar don't "define" New Mexican English, yet they both concur that it is a contact-induced dialect. They both also discuss the voice onset time and certain characteristics of the dialect. There is even an assistant professor, from an internationally recognized university, attesting to the dialect's unique traits. That's more than some English dialects have here on Wikipedia, which is fine, since English is a diverse and ever-evolving language. 75.173.98.22 (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we're talking in circles here. I'm just as in favor of deleting any dialect pages that are as poorly sourced as this one. Having passing mentions in academic papers doesn't make it achieve WP:GNG. WP:IINFO states that "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." So far there have been a few independent sources (and almost none specifically about an English dialect of New Mexico), but even fewer links between the information on the WP page and what is actually said in those sources regarding "New Mexican English" as a distinct dialect. I think the page is plagued with WP:OR. Again, 75.173.98.22, I've noticed you're putting back uncited information onto the WP page or adding back citations that don't actually confirm the information they're being linked to without explanations, even though I've put in an effort to explain all my edits on the talk page. Why do you keep doing this?

The assistant professor source does seem to be one credible example. At least by its abstract, however, the article called "Spanish-English bilingual voice onset time in spontaneous code-switching" directly equates a "New Mexican English" with "typical non-contact English." So that certainly doesn't delineate it as a unique dialect. And the "A milestone study" article I have no current access to, or way of vetting; it doesn't mention New Mexico in the abstract.

Here: Why don't I just list the credible sources that I think directly bolster the idea of a New Mexican English:

The Burqueno Dialect/Damian Wilson video source
"New Mexico Facts, information, pictures"/Encyclopedia.com source (though this source seems to provide relatively insubstantial characteristics)

As far as I can see, that's it. Other sources are not reliable or only mention an imprecise "Southwest English" or provide pronunciations without any scientific backing that the pronunciations belong to a unique dialect or give recordings of people speaking interesting ways (but which may be a special Navajo dialect or Zuni dialect or broader Southwest dialect for all we know; How can we know? We have no sources telling us that they're speaking with a specifically New Mexican accent of English)

Wolfdog (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2015 (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.