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

Lebanese Aramaic

AfDs for this article:

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

"Lebanese Aramaic" is an unattested variety and the term is not used in the literature — the article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOR. It relies almost entirely on an article by a Maronite cultural association (and even it does not use the term "Lebanese Aramaic"), which is not a valid scholarly source (WP:SOURCE) and contains fringe views that are very far outside of the linguistic consensus such as that that "West" Syriac is an "Aramaized" descendent of Caananite. None of the other sources used in the article mention "Lebanese Aramaic", but rather Aramaic or Syriac — the "history" of the alleged variety is collated (violating WP:SYNTH) from discussions of Aramaic and Syriac in general, not from "Lebanese Aramaic" specifically. Most of the linguistic content of the article does not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" (as this variety is unattested and thus undescribed), but rather Syriac or even Lebanese Arabic. In the previous discussion from December 2023 on whether the article should be deleted, two users came out in favour of keeping it, leading to a "no consensus" result and the article being kept. However, at no point did either of the two users touch on any of the of the arguments against keeping the article (i.e. in actually referencing editorial policy), with one user even making the false claim that Lebanese Arabic is primarily descended from Aramaic ("the current spoken Lebanese is a continuation of Surien"). No valid sources have been added since the discussion in December 2023. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concerns from the nominator not withstanding, it seems that if there is an issue here, the best route is going to try and clean it up first before deletion. Perhaps there are other references out there. There seem to be many in this article, and this definitely does not appear to be original research. I find it hard to believe that a language that existed for hundreds of years cannot pass GNG standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said, the article does have references, but they crucially do not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" at all, as this is not a term used in the literature, meaning their use violates NOR. Western Aramaic and Syriac are both attested languages — "Lebanese Aramaic" is not. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's true, then it shouldn't hurt to wait just to be safe to ensure there isn't something else out there mentioning Lebanese Aramaic. Happy to change my opinion if no one comes forward with new information. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as a 2nd nomination already existed prior to this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese Aramaic (2nd nomination), I have moved this to a 3rd nomination page Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhunt

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote on the talk page while you were writing this, there is a lot of coverage of the Wordhunt to be found in Proquest. I added several reliable sources (Guardian, Scotsman, Chronicle of Higher Education), and the Boston Globe was already cited in the article, but there are also articles in Proquest in The Times (several), The Observer, Belfast Telegraph, Derby Evening Telegraph, Daily Post and even The Hindustan Times and Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Television, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desi words

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

Poorly written article. If improved, it would still contradict WP:NOTDICT. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Nxcrypto Message 12:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems to be a perfectly notable topic, see Scholar. Goes far beyond a Dictionary entry!!! -Mushy Yank. 01:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with the nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore in popular usage "Desi word" means totally different than what it's written in the article.CharlesWain (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete this article currently is indeed a dictionary definition. The article is also borderline original research. Also, we already have a full-fledged article at desi. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (really more a "Don't Delete"): Given the duplication between tadbhava and tatsama, I suspect that a merged etymological classes in Middle Indo-Aryan languages or similar article would be better (though that needs expertise - "Gramya"/"Desya" distinction? Continued use of classes for later Indo-Aryan languages?). In the absence of such an article, there's not a good redirect that I can see. A rename to "Desya words" might be ok. There's more than just dictdef-level coverage on GScholar / GBooks[1][2] ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tse with long left leg

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

Probably does not pass GNG; no significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least please consider a 'redirect (at least two obvious targets) -Mushy Yank. 01:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that a "redirect" result is only feasible if a target is clearly identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles