The result was keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author's own WP:SYNTH. For example, they reference the presence of Guarani words in a 1639 Guarani- Spanish dictionary, and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city's name, without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions. This is just one example; there are many others. All in all, there is very little of value in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and since the subject of the article already has its own section at Curitiba#Etymology, there is no reason for a stand alone page on the matter, especially one of such poor quality. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology– False.
Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author’s own WP:SYNTH– Exactly! “Appears” is the word! Because it only appears to be the case, but it is not, revealing your carelessness in consulting the sources and an unwarranted eagerness to delete an article on a subject in which you have no interest and have never shown interest, as evidenced by your editing pattern.
and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city’s name– I didn’t. Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues did. And he was even recognized by the Enciclopédia dos Municípios Brasileiros for this; it’s in the article, read that source!
without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions– Simply false. Again…
This is just one example; there are many others– It’s simply false, as previously stated. So try to cite a real example.
The result was keep. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author's own WP:SYNTH. For example, they reference the presence of Guarani words in a 1639 Guarani- Spanish dictionary, and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city's name, without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions. This is just one example; there are many others. All in all, there is very little of value in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and since the subject of the article already has its own section at Curitiba#Etymology, there is no reason for a stand alone page on the matter, especially one of such poor quality. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology– False.
Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author’s own WP:SYNTH– Exactly! “Appears” is the word! Because it only appears to be the case, but it is not, revealing your carelessness in consulting the sources and an unwarranted eagerness to delete an article on a subject in which you have no interest and have never shown interest, as evidenced by your editing pattern.
and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city’s name– I didn’t. Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues did. And he was even recognized by the Enciclopédia dos Municípios Brasileiros for this; it’s in the article, read that source!
without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions– Simply false. Again…
This is just one example; there are many others– It’s simply false, as previously stated. So try to cite a real example.