Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Language

[edit]

Fracket

[edit]
Fracket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This stub-length definition of a supposed neologism fails WP:NOTNEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Sourcing is primarily student publications (see WP:RSSM). This belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be added to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fraternities and Sororities Rublamb (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I contested the PROD because there are enough sources and potential sources for a much fuller article. WP:NOTNEO indicates that exceptions are for a neologism that receives significant coverage in multiple sources. Major coverage is included in New York Magazine and publications at Dartmouth, Penn State, University of Pennsylvania, Harvard, Bucknell, and Syracuse. The coverage in college magazines and newspapers represents diverse locations and dates. Frackets are also mentioned in and sourced to a scholarly journal (Qualitative Sociology), two books (one by the editors of Seventeen magazine), Philadelphia Magazine, and CNET. Inclusion of the term's relationship to a company and literary inclusions suggest a potential for expansion beyond a dictionary entry. Its inclusion in an academic study gives credibility to the term beyond a neologism. Rublamb (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I appreciate Rublamb's efforts to add sources and expand the article. Below are some initial thoughts on the sources and external links added:
To sum up, I think we have just the article in The Cut as WP:SIGCOV to qualify toward WP:GNG, and we need more. Outside of student media, there's not enough in-depth coverage of this neologism. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the sources and potential sources. I have removed Odyssey as a source; good catch. However, disagree with some of your analysis.
  • You seem to dismiss college newspapers as a reliable source or as having significant coverage. In fact, college newspapers are reliable, and given the universities involved, represent significant circulation. If there was just one article in one campus newspaper, you would have a point. But, as demonstrated by the various publications, the topic has significant coverage in a geographically diverse group of campus publications. Yes, the majority of the articles are features rather than news articles, but that is to be expected with fashion and culture topics. Note that the satirical publications are listed in external links and are not sources for the article.
  • Tab and Her Campus are publications written by college students but are not affiliated with a specific campus. Thus, these to qualify as non-campus sources.
  • Mears and Mooney mention the topic three times in their article, covering the origin and social importance of the fracket. The point is not whether this is trivial or significant coverage but that the term is being discussed in a scholarly article about campus life. This recognition of the term fracket by academics shows that it has moved beyond an Urban Dictionary term or neologism. This also demonstrates coverage in non-university publications.
  • I agree that the mentions in the two books (DiSorbo and Applebaum and Shoket et al.) and the novel are not significant coverage. Rather, these demonstrate coverage by mainstream publishing houses, ie. non-university publications, showing that the term has moved beyond a campus neologism, which is one of your main reasons for this AfD.
  • While we can't use the Urban Dictonary as a source for Wikipedia because it is user-generated content, there is nothing wrong with using a source that discusses the Urban Dictionary's definition. That is, in fact, the very definition of a secondary source.
Rublamb (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was surprised to learn of this term, but am convinced it has generated enough usage and secondary sources to pass the notability test. Jax MN (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiofy bookchip

[edit]
Audiofy bookchip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One news article does not justify an article. Possibly merge to Pimsleur Language Programs - there may be other mentions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese–Hungarian linguistic connection

[edit]
Japanese–Hungarian linguistic connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entire text has major WP:SYNTH and WP:FRINGE issues, and the topic doesn't seem to be notable on its own. There are (outdated, afaik) hypotheses such as Ural-Altaic in which Japanese and Hungarian would share a common ancestor along with Finnish and Turkish and lots of other languages, but the current text fails to establish notability for a Japanese-Hungarian connection in particular and I would be surprised if such an idea were notable even as a fringe theory. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Comparing Japonic with Uralic, or Proto-Japonic with Proto-Uralic, would be a legitimate subject. In fact, this subject is already covered in Classification of the Japonic languages § Uralic hypothesis. But comparing Modern Japanese and Modern Hungarian directly, based only on superficial resemblances, as this article does, is not just fringe science (like any hypothesis that claims a relationship between Uralic and Japonic, including macrofamily hypotheses such as Nostratic – these are not demonstrably wrong, principally methodically nonsensical or not even wrong, but poorly evidenced, generally not accepted and even widely rejected) but flat-out pseudoscience, see Pseudoscientific language comparison (and indeed not even wrong, methodically ignorant and unacceptable). Anyone can do this with random dictionaries, and it proves nothing. As an illustration, you might as well compare Modern French with Modern Moroccan Arabic and come to the conclusion that they are related because of superficial typological similarities and shared words, but this would be obviously absurd because we know about the history of these languages and their ancient ancestors, which are attested meaning that we can compare them directly, were nothing alike. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:SIGCOV of the topic in reliable sources. The article has been marred from the start and still is with OR/SYNTH and misused sources that don't support the statements that they are attached to and that don't cover the topic of the article. There are certainly notable macro-family proposals (mostly of a fringe nature) that include Japanese and Hungarian, but for singling out specifically these two languages in a separate article there simply is no SIGCOV. –Austronesier (talk) 11:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins, per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 22:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Razakar

[edit]
Razakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems more like a dictionary definition than a notable article. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page. There are three other articles about terms with this word as their title (or at least whose title could generally be shortened to this word informally) and one more specific use that can point to an article, so I think it's a useful navigation tool. But I agree that there does not appear to be enough to say about this term itself to merit an article. DMacks (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting for the record and anyone else who is just joining the discussion, User:Buidhe converted it to a DAB while this discussion was pending. I have invited them to comment here. DMacks (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given they have so-far declined, I assume that would be considered to be a !vote "dabify" (their edit-summary, with no further explanation). DMacks (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the last good version (before it was converted into a disambiguation page - an unhelpful edit). There's nothing wrong with it: per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, it's not just dictionary definitions, and has useful links to appropriate articles. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While there's nothing wrong with having an article about a word in general, this article did not seem to have anything beyond dictionary-def content and the defined items and links to articles using that term. To me, that looks MOS:WTLINK plus DAB-list. like Is there more to say about this whole concept or word, as the unified concept or word? The next step up from a Disambiguation page is a Set Index Article. Using the SIA decision guideline (WP:SETNOTDAB), this article is all "Similar names", so it's not a regular article, but instead a SIA vs DAB depending on whether they are all "Similar subjects". DMacks (talk) 21:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation: I agree with DMacks; I think it is best to keep it as a disambiguation page. GrabUp - Talk 12:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8[contribs] 22:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clue (information)

[edit]
Clue (information) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As an article for concept of a clue, I don't really like. For a simple concept, it is as dull as an article for the concept of quality, say for, which there is not because that page is just a disambiguation page. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary may provide explanations on how to improve this article, but I'm focused on deleting it. So, what do you think? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Social science. C F A 💬 04:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This type of article is known as a broad-concept article and they can often be hard to write without looking like dictionary definitions. Theoretically there probably should be another broad-concept article at Quality, but there isn't. Since this is such a common term, I don't see how this wouldn't meet GNG. C F A 💬 04:10, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article defines or gives examples of 1) the concept (information), 2) its different values (share/give/pay), 3) how it is relayed (discovered/shared), 4) its mechanic (ludeme/cheat), 5) its format (straight/cryptic/riddles/contradictions) 6) its etymology. All of this can eventually be expanded and more concrete exemples can be added. "clue" may seem to be a simple concept, but the article shows there are many aspects to it that may not seem obvious at first glance. Writing something that is obvious (or "dull") is because what is obvious to one reader may be a valuable insight to another. As stated in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Major_differences, Wiktionary entries are about words themselves, while Wikipedia entries are articles about what words denote. This article falls into the latter category. --Bensin (talk) 13:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The article fails to demonstrate it can stand on its own as a broad concept article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, the following are dictionary entries:
1) Definitions ("contain nothing more than a definition") – No. The article also contains use, value, form, and examples. It also has a well sourced section on context clues.
2) Dictionary entries – No. "Encyclopedia articles are about [...] a concept", which is the case here.
3) Usage, slang, or idiom guides – No. "Clue" is not a slang term.
Please explain in what way you think the article fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. --Bensin (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It fails (1) since it's nothing more than a couple of definitions, with the rest being WP:OR. Where are the sources on clues as a concept? If there were even a single one there, I might think differently. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is more than definitions, as I listed in my previous response. Yes, I have had difficulties finding sources for clues in games, possibly because most of it is common knowledge. I'll try and find some. Is there a particular statement that you believe to be untrue? However, the section about context clues is well sourced. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added three book sources for the section about clues in games. --Bensin (talk) 17:07, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the sources being other dictionary entries tells you what you need to know.
The article also contains use, value, form, and examples those things are very typical of what you'd find in a dictionary, the corresponding wikitionary entry has all of those things. in fact usage guides are specifcally mentioned in point #3 that Bensin quoted above as being characteristic of a dictionary entry.
It also has a well sourced section on context clues that is just another dictionary definition of a related term - having two dictionary definitions doesn't mean the article fails NOTDICTIONARY any less. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources for context clues are dictionary entries. Those sources are articles that support the facts in the article.
Can you quote the part of the wikitionary entry that contains how clues (not the word clue) are used, their value, or their form? The wikipedia article is about what the word denotes, not about the word itself. --Bensin (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is also not in this article, save for few lines of OR. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is not in the article? What is unsourced original research? --Bensin (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFDs are not a vote count and I see arguments on both sides of whether or not this article meets WP:DICTIONARY or not and how that might impact whether to Keep or Delete this article. At least, that's how I judge the totatlity of this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These changes have been made since the article was nominated for deletion. In short: 9 sources have been added, sturcture has improved with sections, three new sections have been added: "Context clues", "Clue words", and "See also". --Bensin (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep (Uncertain, considering a redirect to Inference or similar instead) - The historian and semiotician Carlo Ginzburg refers to "conjectural disciplines",[1] comparing the use of clues for making conjectures to the use of symptoms for making diagnoses. (Although, this type of theorizing seems more appropriate to include in Forensic science or Conjecture.) Dascal and Weizman (who appear to be some kind of philosophy-adjacent linguists?) proposed "a model of contextual information required for the interpretation of speaker's meaning in written texts. We have further differentiated between context when used for the determination of utterance meaning and speaker's meaning (- as a clue) and for the detection of gaps and mismatch (- as a cue)."[2] Literary historian Franco Moretti writes of clues as a literary device and a historical trend in detective fiction (e.g. [3], where he cites historians, literary critics, philosophers, and psychologists all writing about clues!). All of the above are at least moderately cited. All of this is to say: trivially, the concept of a clue meets WP:GNG (and I think is clearly distinct from something like evidence). Should all of the above conceptual work be discussed on a page called Clue (information)? I'm a little skeptical of that. But I think it serves readers better to keep the article for the moment. WP:CHIMERA seems to suggest we create e.g. Clues in detective fiction, Epistemology of conjecture, and Context clue as separate articles, all linked from Clue.
A tangential comment: the disambiguation page Hint links to Clue (information) as the first entry. In education, there's a huge body of work on hints (what makes a good hint, how to create good hints, when and how to give hints, etc.) I don't think that "hints" as a concept should live on a page called "clue", so it should probably be a mission for a future editor to create Hint (education). Suriname0 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Clues, Myths and the Historical Method. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 1989. ISBN 0-8018-4388-X.
  2. ^ Weizman, Elda; Dascal, Marcelo (1991-01-01). "ON CLUES AND CUES: STRATEGIES OF TEXT-UNDERSTANDING". Journal of Literary Semantics. 20 (1): 18–30. doi:10.1515/jlse.1991.20.1.18. ISSN 1613-3838.
  3. ^ Moretti, Franco (2000). "The Slaughterhouse of Literature". MLQ: Modern Language Quarterly. 61 (1): 207–227. ISSN 1527-1943.

WikiBhasha

[edit]
WikiBhasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Ampercent.com doesn't seem like a reliable source to me. Maybe this Wikipedia-related article should be moved to Wikipedia namespace instead of deleted? Mika1h (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1239345781"