Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerax language

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amerax language

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

This article (as "Amerax") was nominated once before, in 2006 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amerax). However, in the intervening years the rationale for the "keep" !votes in that discussion has disappeared. The "language" no longer has an iso code from Ethnologue. Ethnologue's reasons for discontinuing the code can be found here (PDF): "There may be evidence that some distinct variety of English is in use by "Neo-muslims in prisons" (Gordon, 2005:298) but insufficient evidence to treat it as a separate language. It is presumably some variety of English with possible influences from Arabic. It may not in fact be "fully intelligible" with standard English but probably doesn't merit being separately identified as a language under ISO 639-3." I've had no luck finding any reliable sources on the language, and several other editors have had no luck either (see the article's talk page). The topic thus fails WP:V and WP:RS, at least for the foreseeable future.. --Miskwito (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete only existing sources are circular - i.e. they cite the ethnologue which cites a non-existing paper. It seems highly improbable that this is a language rather than a simple argot or jargon.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --Miskwito (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ethnologue, the primary source for the existence of this language, no longer recognizes it. The article on which Ethnologue used to rely for the language's evidence has not been fully identified or located yet. Even if the article could be located, I would think we would need more evidence than just the one article. Particularly given that this language (or whatever kind of variety one would want to call it) is supposedly spoken in the U.S. by native speakers of English, I would expect there to be a variety of newspapers, magazines, and books containing comments such as "He went to prison and learned to speak Amerax from other inmates", or "I couldn't understand them because they were speaking Amerax", if Amerax were truly notable. I can't find anything like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable, third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG, even if Ethnologue's lack of current recognition is irrelevant, as articles require multiple third-party sources, not a single questionable one. - Sudo Ghost 01:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Angr (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also looked for sources when this topic was mentioned on WikiProject Linguistics, but I also had no luck. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:15, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You'd expect an argot spoken by Muslim converts in US prisons would receive some level of scholarly attention. Unless it's better known by other names, this one draws a blank. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:13, 24 October 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.