Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senkyōshigo

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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Senkyōshigo

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

Has been tagged as Not notable and needing references that appear in reliable third-party publications since June 2009. Every Mormon missionaries who has to learn a foreign language end up mixing his own language and that language for a while. That doesn’t make it a new language or notable. --ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Interlanguage. There is a reliable source, but I agree that this is hardly unique to missionaries in Japan. Cnilep (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-How would you do this? I'm all for the idea, but I'm not sure how to go about it. I can't see how to include the info into the new article. Once I get a clear idea, I would be willing to change the delete tag to a merge tag.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are only two sentences plus an example on the current page, this could either become a subsection or simply cited as one example. However if, as 208.81.184.4 implies below, this is more like a pidgin than typical learner interlanguage, my merger target might not be entirely appropriate. I'll have to think more about it. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 05:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One big difference between other "missionary languages" & Senkyōshigo is that Senkyōshigo has been described in detail in a linguistics academic journal. Senkyōshigo isn't something that "happens for a while" on LDS missions to Japan; it's a self-consistent lingua franca that has existed for decades, and has defied changes in the numbers & organization structures of the LDS missions in Japan, as well as various attempts to discourage its use &/or kill it by mission presidents & other priesthood authorities. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have additional third-party sources that document its history and extent of use? There is one source cited now, but those are big claims to make on the basis of a single article plus primary sources. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Contrary to my previous comment, I have found no sources calling the variety an example of interlanguage. Smout (1988) suggests that it resembles a pidgin, but argues that it is not a pidgin as such. On the other hand, the only sources I have found discussing the variety are Smout and three discussions of problem case for defining varieties that cite Smout's lone paper on Senkyoshigo (Gorlach 1996, Grant 2001, and Golokov 2003). Cnilep (talk) 10:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sure many foreigners in Japan have mixed Japanese words into English speech, but that doesn't make it a "pidgin" or notable enough to be documented here. --DAJF (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2011 (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.