Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine dialect

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. Perhaps rename as discussed below? Sandstein 09:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maine dialect

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

There is no [linguistic] evidence given that there is a "Maine dialect." There is indeed a Maine accent as part of the larger Northeastern New England dialect; see New England English. However, even the Maine accent bears virtually no significant differences from the rest of Northeastern New England. At the same time, there are not even any academic sources given. Linguists do not recognize any unique Maine dialect. Wolfdog (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is no Maine Dialect as recognized academically, it has had a significant presence culturally and commercially, and Maine has been widely represented by non-academics as its own dialect for about a century, as documented in a variety of news sources. I think the matter could take its own page, although I admit that that will take research and editing in which I have no desire to involve myself. Unless somebody will do the work, we might be best merging it back into New England English. Chamberlian (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak redirect~~ Keep - right now the article seems to be entirely WP:OR, which is very problematic. The three citations appear to be either unreliable or fairly trivial. However, this is an article in reliable source which quotes from a professor (Bert Vaux) who studies Maine accents in specific: [1]. Another source here: [2]. But right now I'm not sure there's enough reliably sourced info to sustain a page. I think a redirect, at least for the moment, may make sense. But I think a case can be made for a pared down version of this page remaining. Do you have any sources for your claim that "Linguists do not recognize any unique Maine dialect"? If that were true I'd agree this page should be removed. mikeman67 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My main point is that sociolinguists recognize a uniquely Northeastern New England English dialect, but not a uniquely "Maine" English dialect. Can you find anything to negate this? Even "Maine sub-dialect" would be a safer name though this would be conjectural. More to the point, the variety has no significant notability beyond the whole of Northeastern New England English, which is already discussed at both New England English#Northeastern New England and Boston accent. I see no linguistics articles that separate these apart meaningfully from any kind of a "Maine English." They're all the same dialect (the most notable sub-type being the Boston one). As for your first article (which at least has some specifics, such as "Italian sandwich" and "yonder," but by no means confirms that Maine speech constitutes its own dialect, and in fact, the quoted linguist Vaux consistently speaks of Maine as a subset of [Eastern] New England English) is written by a journalist/reporter and your second article by a theatre critic -- neither one a linguist. I would be in favor of either deletion OR a redirect. Wolfdog (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure if it's relevant whether the authors are linguists or not. I don't think that's ever the standard in these debates (do we require scientists to cover new inventions? Athletes to cover sports events?). It's true that even Vaux discusses it in context of an Eastern New England English dialect. But at the same time, Vaux says that it is "utterly distinct for New Englanders." I've done some more digging and I've turned up a number of other references in various secondary sources: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Frankly I think there's enough in all these sources to make an article and I'm reconsidering my vote. Unless of course you have some more references you can show me the other way! mikeman67 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Google Scholar turns up a handful of hits, and there are book mentions as well: [8]. Changing my vote for now, I think there are enough references in both media and scholarly works that it exists as a concept separate from New England. But open to a discussion on this, since they are obviously closely related. mikeman67 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is relevant whether the authors are linguists, or whether at least the authors are citing linguists. For a biology concept with its own new WP article, we would absolutely expect to cite biologists or authors referencing biologists. We would not want to cite people who simply have a vague, non-scientific "impression" or "perception" of this biological concept with no actual quotes/stats/data from biologists to back them up. A potential problem with only non-scientific work used to support the "truth" of a "Maine dialect" is that, as sociolinguistics has shown, the layperson’s perceptions of language can often differ from the reality. The local sound system heard in Maine (though very real) is in fact not limited to Maine (and so shouldn't be named as such), as I've said, since it belongs to a larger, already-named (North-)Eastern New England dialect, which currently has its own WP write-up under New England English (and whose most famous sub-variety is the Boston accent). Yes, there are some localized differences in all dialects, but enough in just Maine to merit a whole new, separate article? My linguistic basis on this topic comes from Charles Boberg, William Labov, and others in works like the Atlas of North American English (see the top right-hand map on New England English, which comes from that source) and A Handbook of Varieties of English, who define coastal Maine as falling under the (North-)Eastern New England dialect. Only a significantly notable Maine accent should get its own page (under that name: "Maine accent"), or, if called "Maine dialect," there needs to be definitive proof that there is a dialect completely exclusive to Maine, which does NOT seem to be the linguistic consensus. Here's my examination of your sources:

[3] ["Maine Dialect Pure English, Says Professor"] is the tiniest newspaper snippet and gives zero specifics. (But is there more from this English professor, Jacob Bennett?)

[4] says nothing about an exclusive-to-Maine dialect.

[5] says nothing about an exclusive-to-Maine dialect, and is careful to use the reader-friendly terms "Maine accent" and "Maine twang."

[6] says nothing about an exclusive-to-Maine dialect.

[7] mentions "r-dropping," which is common to all of Eastern New England. “How be ye’?” is certainly quite a unique phrase; otherwise, there are no exclusive specifics mentioned. (Yet this writer is bold enough to even use the plural "Maine dialects" with utterly no explanation. Where's their research??)

[8]'s author discusses lexical features dying out even at the time of her writing in the 1920s. Yes, she calls it a "dialect," but is this the layperson meaning again? I wonder if the article can much relate to modern Maine features (or modern dialectology even) and I suspect the author is not a linguist, scientist, peer reviewer, researcher, etc. due to the year of publication and the fact that she mentions a huge number of idioms that are not actually exclusive to Maine.

[9]'s Tsuneko Ikemiya is the same mysterious scholar referenced in [7], I presume? This is certainly very academic, though limited to one phonological feature (the broad a system) that is again not exclusive, occurring throughout Northeastern New England (again, including Boston).

[10] This is by the far the most persuasive article! It even definitively says "The sound of the Maine accent is quite different from that of Boston, even if they share features such as r-lessness and broad 'a'" and is the first of this list to focus on the nuanced differences (which I had before assumed were virtually non-existent)! The specifics it highlights still seem to show that Boston and Maine are really sub-varieties of the same dialect, rather than altogether separate dialects, but at least the article focuses on the specifics at all! This article alone has me fairly intrigued about the whole issue. Are there more like this?

If other discussion participants feel that the Maine accent is notable enough, then I think a rename is in order. However, I still feel that an article about a definite "Maine dialect" is quite a stretch. Thanks for going out and finding those sources! Wolfdog (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem with this standard is that it would mean any discredited or non-mainstream scientific view wouldn't merit a page. Or perhaps an observed local phenomenon, like a UFO sighting. But that's not really the standard, right? Per WP:GNG - it's really any published, reliable source, of which a newspaper would be included. I think as long as there are enough sources to establish notability and verifiability, even if those sources are not university academics, and a sufficiently detailed page could be created, then the page should stay. And I think we have that here, at least from what I've seen. Of course such a page would have to balance mainstream views of linguists and other experts, which you say disagree that a dialect or accent doesn't exist (I haven't been able to locate in my limited searching, and would love to see, being a non-expert myself). I do of course understand your point. Perhaps some better sources can be dug up on this. mikeman67 (talk) 19:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are certainly scholarly sources which talk of a "Maine dialect" and so the topic is notable. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Can you please refer to these articles? The point here is to engage in some discussion to see what we can agree on. Wolfdog (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only point at issue here is whether the delete function should be used so that only administrators can see the page. For a good general survey of the topic and its potential sources please see English in Maine:
Hans Kurath’s massive, six volume Linguistic Altas of New England, completed between 1939 and 1943, was the most comprehensive of these early twentieth century efforts to characterize Maine dialect. His work divided New England into seven linguistic subregions and Maine into two subregions, and it made a distinction between General Maine dialect and Upper Maine dialect (the latter representing the north and far eastern sections of the state).

Thanks for finding these. I'm not sure that the "English in Maine" article identifies at this point in time (probably post-WWII), an exclusive-to-Maine dialect. In fact, I feel the article more confirms my own understanding of recent studies that Main English has mostly developed into/alongside a larger Northeastern New England-area English that includes Boston, since it states that

[Kurath's work divided] Maine into two subregions, and it made a distinction between General Maine dialect and Upper Maine dialect[....] Many of Kurath’s subregions, however, exhibited only minor variations from one another. Thus, in most of the later scholarly material, Maine dialect has been treated more-or-less uniformly and most often been labeled ‘Eastern New England English’ or ‘Northern New England English.’ It is generally observed that[...] the traditional dialect of Maine has more profound resemblances to the dialects spoken elsewhere in northern New England; it is closely related to the well-known dialect of Boston, the area's closest urban centre.

I feel that many of the sources we're finding can be used to gird a "Northeastern New England English" page (perhaps a new one, split off from New England English if other editors are interested? [It is becoming clearer to me that this may be the most significant next task at hand... splitting up the "New England English" page]) with a (sub-)section on Maine. And I'm not sure what you want to make of the lumpers–splitters distinction, though I certainly understand your point.Wolfdog (talk) 13:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't bold anything above, I will say again that I think that, despite a general academic consensus that it does not exist, a 'Maine accent' is perceived and assumed by a number of reliable sources from all over New England going back a century, and we should therefore rename and keep the page. Chamberlian (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be on board for a rename to "Maine accent." This also matches the style of "Boston accent" and doesn't imply the contentious status of its being a unique dialect. Wolfdog (talk) 19:04, 19 October 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.