Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi 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 keep. Sandstein 09:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi English[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Procedural nom on behalf of an IP editor. Their rationale is:
uncensored and original research article- provided 2 sources are entirely topic unrelated −2A0A:A540:EF2C:0:206E:AE1E:B106:F48B (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk _YO! 07:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am not at all sure what "uncensored" means. The topic of Bangladeshi English, or Banglish, is one that is studied in the context of World Englishes, dialects of English (a Wikipedia category[1]) spoken around the world. The article may not be well referenced, but plenty of sources do exist, including Contemporary Indian English: Variation and Change[2]; The Dhaka University Studies: Journal of the Faculty of Arts, Volume 65[3]; 'Bangladeshi English: A new variety', R Banu (2000) Journal of the Institute of Modern Languages; English in Bangladesh after independence: Dynamics of policy and practice, R Banu, R Sussex (2001) Oxford University Press - and many more. It is also used about the English spoken by British people of Bangladeshi heritage, eg in Zadie Smith - White Teeth and Multiculturalism[4]; Dialect death in Europe? Wilhelmina Jongenburger (2009) Mouton de Gruyter; Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: Linguistic innovation in London, De Gruyter 2008; 'Ethnicity, religion and practices: Adolescents in the East End of London' in Language and Identities (2009) Edinburgh University Press [5], etc. I don't know the motivations of the IP nominator, but I suspect that they have not done a WP:BEFORE. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per RebeccaGreen, passes WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 13:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The article might truly be in need of improvement, however it clearly passes WP:GNG (and consistency would lead us to included it anyway - if there are articles for other national varieties of English, hard to justify why this one would not warrant an article). The nomination is without merit (since it essentially reads “This article is a mess. It needs to be rewritten.”, and that is not a valid criterion, Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup) and should be closed per WP:SKCRIT no. 2 and/or 3. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by RebeccaGreen. Reyk _YO! 08:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Scholar links shows this concept is real. --Jirangmoon (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2018 (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.