Home • Search • Translate
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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language.
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

Meff

Meff (  | 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)

Falls under WP:NOTDICT - already an entry in Wiktionary. Orphaned page. Orange sticker ( talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Dennis Sempebwa

Dennis Sempebwa (  | 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)

Sequentially an article that is written with many links and ref layout so impress editors and readers. A general overview of this articles shows its failure in meeting general notability guidelines. The articles told us that subject of it is a writer, but it's also credibly that it goes nowhere to WP:NAUTHOR. The books doesn't seem to have significant coverage or reviews to indicate a generally critically accepted written work. Aside from that, most of the books were published by his 'press' which doesn't meet notability and seems to be cited also in the article.

No coverage at all for his impact in the filed. In general, it doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO for inclusion, please analyse the sources before commenting. Some of the sources doesn't necessarily approves the word it's citing or let me say, "unreliable". Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Some of the currently cited sources are written by Sempebwa or published by organizations related to him, which is not suitable to establish notability. But some of the sources (e.g. The Monitor, Pulse Uganda) seem to be independent. I can't tell from the sites' own "about us" information, and in light of the somewhat laudatory tone, whether these can be considered "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ( WP:RS), though. Cnilep ( talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

John Hoberman

John Hoberman (  | 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)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH ( talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep ( talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of alternative names for oceans

List of alternative names for oceans (  | 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)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Woke Mind Virus

Woke Mind Virus (  | 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)

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn ( talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. ( t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term " Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 ( talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) ( talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors. Iljhgtn ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. ( t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of " woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn ( talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:NOPAGE we also need to consider if this topic benefits from being a stand alone article rather than being covered in the woke article. Evidence for this theory is what I think is lacking. ( t · c) buidhe 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the phrase is not really notable and similar phrases already exist. It's just a variation of the term woke. There exists multiple variations of this same term and they do not have their own unique articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I understand the concerns of the UNDUE weight given to the Elon Musk section, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Further, given the deletion rational of NEO, I think it's easy to examine the references provided in the article and in an independent search that the term woke mind virus meets notability independently from woke and is an appropriate topic split. microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NEO does seem to apply here - avoid making pages for terms in order to increase usage of the term. SportingFlyer T· C 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This term is very widely used by reliable sources, so WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply. Because of the wide range of reliable sourcing, the term does deserve its own page beyond just something like "woke." Doctorstrange617 ( talk) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. The fact that it is an epithet popularized by a crackpot billionaire is neither here nor there. Carrite ( talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings (  | 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)

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram ( talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram ( talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa ( talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb ( talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe ( talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios ( talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios ( talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios ( talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @ Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios ( talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios ( talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.
@ Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios ( talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Italian language in Romania

Italian language in Romania (  | 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)

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona ( talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Italian isn't listed there as a language used in Romania. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be based on something like census data. If Italian doesn't show in official statistics it probably shouldn't be addressed there. Lamona ( talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
According to the latest census, there are 4105 native speakers of Italian in Romania. Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Because the use of a language in a country would intuitively be covered in the existing article for the minority speaking that language in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

French exonyms

French exonyms (  | 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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of French exonyms for Dutch toponyms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for German toponyms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for Italian toponyms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B- t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T· C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    > just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago
    That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG ( talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T· C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang ( talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang ( talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T· C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang ( talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [1] [2] [3], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T· C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    … I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang ( talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG ( talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T· C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang ( talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article needs to be better sourced, but there's plenty of sources available, especially if you search in French. Such as this. Most of the !voters in this discussion are ignoring the fact this can be better sourced, which is equivalent to notability. SportingFlyer T· C 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Is it? Are dictionary entries notable? – That pdf is roughly a French analogue of Toponymy of England, and I would be happy to see analogous articles about various countries, but it is not about exonyms. —Tamfang ( talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a list that violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, same holds for the child articles. It would be absolutely cool to have an article about the topic of French exonyms. Certainly meets GNG, many sources that would explain how French exonyms historically evolved, the phonological challenges when toponym get nativized etc. But this article has nothing, rien about that. It's just an indiscriminate list of toponyms. – Austronesier ( talk) 13:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I had not noticed the child articles. I would not remove lists of German names for places that were formerly in German territory, but a corresponding French list would be pretty short! —Tamfang ( talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Agletarang ( talk) 09:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Prodded articles

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1221862782"
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.
Note that 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 links to other discussions ( prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language.
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

Meff

Meff (  | 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)

Falls under WP:NOTDICT - already an entry in Wiktionary. Orphaned page. Orange sticker ( talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Dennis Sempebwa

Dennis Sempebwa (  | 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)

Sequentially an article that is written with many links and ref layout so impress editors and readers. A general overview of this articles shows its failure in meeting general notability guidelines. The articles told us that subject of it is a writer, but it's also credibly that it goes nowhere to WP:NAUTHOR. The books doesn't seem to have significant coverage or reviews to indicate a generally critically accepted written work. Aside from that, most of the books were published by his 'press' which doesn't meet notability and seems to be cited also in the article.

No coverage at all for his impact in the filed. In general, it doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO for inclusion, please analyse the sources before commenting. Some of the sources doesn't necessarily approves the word it's citing or let me say, "unreliable". Safari Scribe Edits! Talk! 23:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: Some of the currently cited sources are written by Sempebwa or published by organizations related to him, which is not suitable to establish notability. But some of the sources (e.g. The Monitor, Pulse Uganda) seem to be independent. I can't tell from the sites' own "about us" information, and in light of the somewhat laudatory tone, whether these can be considered "sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" ( WP:RS), though. Cnilep ( talk) 03:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

John Hoberman

John Hoberman (  | 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)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH ( talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep ( talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of alternative names for oceans

List of alternative names for oceans (  | 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)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY PepperBeast (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Woke Mind Virus

Woke Mind Virus (  | 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)

Feels entirely like WP:NEO. Half the usage section is just dedicated to Elon Musk (at the time of AFD nomination).

Look I understand Go woke, go broke exists, but that feels like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is every popular iteration of a phrase invoking the ideas of wokeness going to have its own article?

According to the article, "Vanity Fair has titled whole sections of stories under the "Woke Mind Virus" label." This isn't actually a label that is selectable/catagorized/tagged like "politics", but a custom label for one article.

I do not doubt the phrase's usage in popular media and by influential people, but it is essentially the same thing as woke. I could go on, but I think this can be deleted and redirected to woke. Alternatively, this content can be merged into woke as its own section with the criticism. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 01:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep, since WP:NEO is cited, let us see what it says, Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, but in this case this phrase is very widely cited across an enormous variety of reliable sources. The phrase probably should also be mentioned at the woke article and other mentions should be added and included, but a page for Woke Mind Virus itself makes sense given the sources as broad and significant as they are. Iljhgtn ( talk) 02:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Iljhgtn, yes it is popular term, this is already addressed. WP:NEO also says, Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. This is not in question. I do not doubt it will be utilized in large portions of media and scholarly works. Until it is shown to be its own distinct concept, it is essentially a branch term used to criticize wokeness. There is a criticism section in woke that this neologism can direct to in my opinion. Currently, Anti-woke redirects to woke. Anti-woke is an older term than woke mind virus and used it much more media/scholarly works. WMV is just a substitute term for being against wokeness (or anti-woke). Alternatively, I think a separate article that incorporates reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term titled something along the lines of "Criticisms of woke/wokeness" or even "anti-woke" could also be appropriate, where WMV redirects to. I do not see the point of a standalone article about Woke Mind Virus. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or merge/redirect no evidence that this neologism deserves a stand-alone wikipedia article. ( t · c) buidhe 07:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: Passes WP:NEO and has coverage by reliable sources. BlakeIsHereStudios ( talk | contributions) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Selectively merge and redirect to woke. There's no separate subject here -- it's the same "woke" pejorative discussed in that article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Weak Redirect, maybe i'm just biased because this is an inherently silly sounding phrase, but I don't see how it differentiates from the term " Woke" so a redirect there would be optimal. Samoht27 ( talk) 16:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge/redirect to Woke, it's just a slight variation of the exact same thing. Di (they-them) ( talk) 16:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment: A couple people have suggested a merge or redirect, but I would like to point out that this term "woke mind virus" actually has quite substantial coverage of its own differentiating it quite a bit from "woke" and therefore a mere mention of this term on that page seems to be inadequate. This source mentions the term as distinct but was early in coverage so does not yet mention what WMV means. This source mentions the WMV phrase in depth by itself completely independent of "woke". This source mentions the history of the term, especially as used specifically by Elon Musk since around 2021 and in reference to San Francisco and includes some of the defining language that separates and distinguishes this phrase at is popularly understood by sources, Despite his repeated use of the phrase, the precise meaning of “woke mind virus” has been difficult to pin down. Musk told Bill Maher during an interview on HBO: “I think we need to be very cautious about anything that is anti-meritocratic, and anything that … results in the suppression of free speech. Those are two aspects of the woke mind virus that I think are very dangerous.” This source speaks uniquely of the WMV by saying much about Musk's use of it from a critical perspective. This source again uses both "woke" as well as WMV and refers to them as distinct terms with their own meanings. This source predominantly focuses on just the "woke" phrase but has an important passing mention of WMV, though obviously passing mentions in general are not to carry weight towards an AfD consideration. This source covers the phrase and the Netflix mention with some detail. I believe the above, and much more can be found with fairly little work and effort actually to support an independent page for both the WMV phrase as well as woke and other phrases mentioned by other editors. Iljhgtn ( talk) 19:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A lot of these sources are not reliable, though. ( t · c) buidhe 15:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This article from The Wall Street Journal leading on this subject in a very strong WP:SIGCOV manner. This article from Rolling Stone discusses the term/phrase with both Musk as well as Bill Maher's involvement and contributions. This article from fact-checking website Snopes cites the Webster dictionary definition of " woke" independent of the subsequent mention of "woke mind virus" which the article then explores in depth further on going back to its seeming origins (related to Musk at least) from 2021, The first mention of the words "woke mind virus" that we could find in Musk's feed showed up in December 2021. There is much, much, more out there on the internet as well that can be easily found. The "no evidence" claim seems to have not sufficiently considered WP:BEFORE. Iljhgtn ( talk) 19:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Per WP:NOPAGE we also need to consider if this topic benefits from being a stand alone article rather than being covered in the woke article. Evidence for this theory is what I think is lacking. ( t · c) buidhe 06:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as the phrase is not really notable and similar phrases already exist. It's just a variation of the term woke. There exists multiple variations of this same term and they do not have their own unique articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I understand the concerns of the UNDUE weight given to the Elon Musk section, but that's not the purpose of AfD. Further, given the deletion rational of NEO, I think it's easy to examine the references provided in the article and in an independent search that the term woke mind virus meets notability independently from woke and is an appropriate topic split. microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 14:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:NEO does seem to apply here - avoid making pages for terms in order to increase usage of the term. SportingFlyer T· C 04:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This term is very widely used by reliable sources, so WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply. Because of the wide range of reliable sourcing, the term does deserve its own page beyond just something like "woke." Doctorstrange617 ( talk) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Easily passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes. The fact that it is an epithet popularized by a crackpot billionaire is neither here nor there. Carrite ( talk) 07:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings (  | 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)

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram ( talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram ( talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa ( talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb ( talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe ( talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him •  talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios ( talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios ( talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios ( talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @ Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios ( talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios ( talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.
@ Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios ( talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

  • The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". -- TaivoLinguist (Taivo) ( talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article.  //  Timothy ::  talk  07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Italian language in Romania

Italian language in Romania (  | 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)

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona ( talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Italian isn't listed there as a language used in Romania. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be based on something like census data. If Italian doesn't show in official statistics it probably shouldn't be addressed there. Lamona ( talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
According to the latest census, there are 4105 native speakers of Italian in Romania. Biruitorul Talk 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Because the use of a language in a country would intuitively be covered in the existing article for the minority speaking that language in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

French exonyms

French exonyms (  | 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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

List of French exonyms for Dutch toponyms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for German toponyms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of French exonyms for Italian toponyms (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. PepperBeast (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT, not to mention being entirely unsourced. ---- D'n'B- t -- 14:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep this was just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago, and has been re-nominated by the same nominator. Definitely a WP:TROUT or possibly even sanctions may be in order. SportingFlyer T· C 18:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    > just closed as no consensus a couple weeks ago
    That's... that's the point of re-nominating. To... create consensus where it wasn't possible to do so before. BrigadierG ( talk) 18:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    No, the mass deletion of all exonym listicles failed to reach consensus, so they are now listed separately. —Tamfang ( talk) 19:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Oh. Well, that's still ridiculous then. The UN has a working group specifically on French exonyms, as does the French government, showing this is a valid encyclopedic topic. I don't know how any of you are getting to WP:NOTDICTIONARY here - these are not definitions or dictionary entries but rather valid lists - and WP:LISTCRUFT is simply an "i don't like it" argument. SportingFlyer T· C 19:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well, an article on the working group might be interesting. But how is an endless list of French words for places more worthy than a list of French words for spices or engine parts? —Tamfang ( talk) 20:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    or Bosnian names of primate families —Tamfang ( talk) 02:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    In that link, the author refers to the project as an attempt to create a database. Sure would be a shame if there was a policy called WP:NOTDATABASE. BrigadierG ( talk) 20:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    This isn't a database, though, it's a valid WP:LIST. SportingFlyer T· C 22:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    In most of our lists, most of the entries have their own articles. Is there any prospect of an article about the French word for Bangkok? —Tamfang ( talk) 22:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:NLIST specifically says the entries in the list do not need to be notable enough for their own article, just that the group or set is notable. A simple Google scholar search lends more credibility to the fact this set is notable, such as [1] [2] [3], including (but not linking here) two articles on French exonyms for Polish place names. SportingFlyer T· C 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    … I meant to add: no consensus because not all such listicles are equally trivial, i.e., some do more than belabor the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words (including placenames) to its own phonology and orthography. —Tamfang ( talk) 20:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Quite true. There was no consensus because there was simply too much in the nom for one discussion. My bad. So, I'm going back through the area in a more rational way. Re-listing when no consensus emerges is what's supposed to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete - I agree with nominator, this is a case of WP:NOTDICTIONARY BrigadierG ( talk) 18:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk) 20:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. Please include a link to any previous AFDs concerning these articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel ( talk) 03:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  • It's still notable, there are plenty of sources available, needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T· C 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Could you make that more specific? Notable why, what sort of improvement? —Tamfang ( talk) 20:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    The article needs to be better sourced, but there's plenty of sources available, especially if you search in French. Such as this. Most of the !voters in this discussion are ignoring the fact this can be better sourced, which is equivalent to notability. SportingFlyer T· C 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    Is it? Are dictionary entries notable? – That pdf is roughly a French analogue of Toponymy of England, and I would be happy to see analogous articles about various countries, but it is not about exonyms. —Tamfang ( talk) 00:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, which this article obviously is (It's not a WP:GLOSSARIES, as it just provides straight translations between word). Also, clearly, any WP:ITSUSEFUL or WP:JUSTNOTABLE are unhelpful in this discussion. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 06:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a list that violates WP:NOTDICTIONARY, same holds for the child articles. It would be absolutely cool to have an article about the topic of French exonyms. Certainly meets GNG, many sources that would explain how French exonyms historically evolved, the phonological challenges when toponym get nativized etc. But this article has nothing, rien about that. It's just an indiscriminate list of toponyms. – Austronesier ( talk) 13:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply
    I had not noticed the child articles. I would not remove lists of German names for places that were formerly in German territory, but a corresponding French list would be pretty short! —Tamfang ( talk) 01:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Agletarang ( talk) 09:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Prodded articles

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1221862782"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE