" 
 ::: Sounds reasonable. To clarify, I'm not submitting my own anecdotes as material to include in the article, just indicating my opinion that the article topic isn't nonsense or non-notable, and that I'm not seeing anything glaringly wrong.  I agree there seem to be some overgeneralizations. E.g. I agree with the ""cran"" thing being not state-wide at all. Of course the dialect is not consistent statewide, though. No dialects or subdialects are tied very closely to political boundaries except where they happen to coincide with geographically isolating ones, like large bodies of water.  There are ethnological as well as geographical differences. And there have been modern migration patterns influencing things just in the last 20 years.  Again, I'm not making assertions about what the article should say, just suggesting that we can't actually expect uniformity. Patterns observed by one source won't be absolutely consistent throughout the area, and may contradict what some other sources report. The same is probably true in most other parts of the country.I think the sourcing difficulty lies in the fact that this sort of thing is not a current topic of much scholarly interest. American dialects were surveyed in great detail and analyzed decades ago, and this material was published in paper journals. Not a lot of this is available online. Same goes with lots of secondary-source articles in various magazines and such.As to the specific source disputes you outline, I think what might be going on (though it could take hours of poring over edits to be certain), is that various people have added material to the article, sometimes including citations, then other people added more, sometimes interpolating it into previous passages that had citations. This happens all the time, and it makes source X, which was cited for facts A and B, appear to be being cited for the inserted but really unsourced claims C and D.  Then along comes someone who checks these citations, and removes claims not really citable to the source in question, and back comes someone crying ""you're deleting sourced information!""  I've seen (and been in the middle of) exactly this pattern before. I have an idea (posted separately below) for how to resolve the dispute.  —    ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼   

 * Suggestion: Re-word the material to separate the sourced from unsourced facts, even if it makes for a few short sentences and some paragraphs we'd like to flow better.  Tag the unsourced ones with , then post an update outlining what needs to be sourced. If after  amount of time (a week?) no citations or corrections are forthcoming, then start removing unsourced claims, in order of how badly they don't seem to fit WP:NOCITE.  I agree with the general premise of NOCITE (or we'd delete probably 30$ of WP content right now), but only up to a point.  WP:V policy is clear that any material that's controversial and unsourced, or improperly sourced, can be deleted. And if anyone controverts a claim in good faith, then it is in fact controversial within the meaning of WP:V. The anon needs to stop reflexively re-inserting claims as being sourced by reference X when they are not. Inserting a probably factual claim with no source and saying ""see WP:NOCITE, while I actively look for a source"", is not comparable to blatantly falsifying citations, nor even to inserting unsourced material without doing so and expecting it to remain there, unsourced, indefinitely.  —    ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  "