Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Language. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Language|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Language

Oluwatumininu

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

Page about a name, sourced to one unreliable (wiki) and very short source. I had redirected it to the one article for someone with this name, but this was reverted, so here we are. This AfD is to reinstate the redirect, not to delete it. This seems to be part of some major Nigerian project to have a separate article for every single Nigerian name, no matter the notability or the need for a disambiguation. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Disambiguations, and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose redirect of all the possible options, a redirect to Ayodele Awojobi (a person who has this as their middle name, is not particularly prominent, and is definitely not the primary topic) seems the worst. Keep, delete, soft-redirect to Wiktionary, merge to a list of Yoruba names; any would be better than the suggested redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the one name-holder listed, Ayodele Awojobi, was male, and the first ref in his article gives his middle name as Olutuminu (though this could easily be a common abbreviated form, like "Chris" or "Pam"), so better sourcing is needed in both articles. PamD 08:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If the one listed isn't even named this (or we can't verify it), then of course it shouldn't redirect and should be deleted instead. Fram (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kambojan language

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

This should be redirected to Kambojas. As far as I am aware when I rewrote Kambojas, we barely have enough info for the people, let alone their obscure language. This article doesn't give any valuable info that isn't already mentioned in the more well sourced Kambojas#Language and location. This article also had several poor quality citations, which I've removed. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just place a {{merge}} tag on the article instead of nominating it for deletion if a redirect is your intention? 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you're right. My bad. Well, this is awkward. Not sure if this AFD should be closed so I can do that, or just wait for the consensus here. I don't mind either. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regular sound correspondences between Hungarian and other Uralic languages

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

The topics "Regular sound correspondences between Uralic languages" and "Historical phonology of Hungarian" are both notable. However, this topic does not have notability independent of those topics; Hungarian does not play such a critical role in Uralic reconstruction as to justify the existence of this page. Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Stockhausenfan (talk) 22:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valid points. Suggest rename and refactor, perhaps indeed as Historical phonology of Hungarian. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 09:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Tropylium, we don't rename as part of an AFD closure. Are you voting Keep? If this article is Kept, you can discuss retitling the article and changing its focus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose that is strictly speaking keep w/ different discussion required afterwards. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 00:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Let’s be honest about some facts here: (1) it’s completely unreferenced and nobody is making any effort to find sources, (2) changing the title of this essay is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and (3) it’s most likely original research. It’s time to source this and fix it, or delete it. If you want to fix this, but need more than a few days, Draftify it yourself. Bearian (talk) 11:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a shame that this article isn't sourced, but a search on G-Books and G-Scholar for "uralic languages hungarian" indicates that sources do exist. For example, g-book, other g-book, and these articles [1], [2]. It is possible that this information could be merged into Hungarian phonology, but that article is already quite long. It also does not this kind of comparison. Lamona (talk) 16:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the title, the content of the article is ultimately about the historical phonology of Hungarian, which is a notable topic. So I think all that is needed on that front is a title change, as proposed by Trɔpʏliʊm. On the other hand, I do share Bearian's concerns about WP:OR, particularly since this is the sort of topic that attracts crackpots and misinformation. What reassures me on that front is that all of the information passes a basic smell test, and I was able to verify a few of the lexical reconstructions, which would be the most likely target for OR. So I don't see any issues here that aren't repairable, or that are likely to pose a problem if it takes a while for them to be repaired. Botterweg (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unreferenced original research. --Altenmann >talk 19:00, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles