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

Docere

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

This article appears to fall outside of Wikipedia's scope, particularly the principle that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The page exists entirely to document the usage of this one Latin word, a goal best covered by Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia's policy on the matter, such an entry requires information "beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry" and "information on the social or historical significance of the term." The article attempts to fulfill this requirement by citing quotes from Cicero about rhetoric, but these examples are largely unrelated to the actual word "docere" and are more relevant to the Ciceronian understanding of oration. Such information belongs more in a separate article about rhetoric or Cicero or oration than it does its own stand-alone article. Consider how Wikipedia has an article on Sexuality in ancient Rome but does not have a distinct article for the Latin verb "amare." Even the verb "delectare," despite being mentioned within the same context of Cicero describing the duties of rhetoric, does not have its own article, only a redirect. Graearms (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find use of the term, but this isn't enough for an article. The article now seems to be how one person used the term in his time, rather than an extensive etymology of the word. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term fits more into a dictionary than Wikipedia. Ibjaja055 (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Orator (Cicero), which already discusses (albeit briefly) the goals of rhetoric that Cicero identified, including the subject of this article. There is clearly more here than a dictionary definition, but it would be better treated together with its source and potentially the other related concepts. That appears to be the reason why delectare redirects to that article. The discussion here isn't unencyclopedic; it's just misplaced—not to mention undictionarian. P Aculeius (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish place names

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

Tagged unsourced for over a decade. Some articles already have a lot of cited info about their names for example Samsun so maybe we don’t need this list? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Lists, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obscure focus. Unsourced. Aintabli (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if the decision is to keep this list it needs to be given a title that is not a lie. It is not a "List of Turkish place names"; it is a seriously incomplete list of places in Turkey with names that have Greek origins. Many places in Turkey do not fit this criterion, including some large cities, such as Diyarbakır, not to mention a great many smaller places. Athel cb (talk) 07:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanewashing

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

Non-notable neologism, per WP:NOTDICT and WP:NEO. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 20:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LizardJr8 (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: within one hour of the article creation, the nominating editor Darth Stabro first recommended the article be deleted, then one minute later added a tag suggesting the article might be improved. This seems rather incongruous to me and I recommend the editor pick a lane, as a dual-track might suggest WP:IDONTLIKEIT. soibangla (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that if it is to be kept, there are other things that need to be done. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 13:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Springee (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm skeptical of neologisms, but this one has clearly resonated with journalists as there's been a steady stream of sources in top-tier news as well as journalism publications over the entirety of the last month. WP:NOTDICT inapplicable as the sourcing goes way beyond basic definition/usage, and it simply passes WP:NEO. I can link to more than those in the article, but my guess is quantity of sources isn't going to be persuasive? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rhododendrites, this term has been discussed by many reliable sources. What's the point of deleting an article like this, rather than working to improve upon it? Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Many more RS are commenting on this term, so it now easily passes GNG. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:

This article extends well beyond a dictionary entry and so WP:NOTDICT is not a reason for deletion. For example, it covers analysis of the practice of sanewashing, not just the word (RS: The Atlantic, MSNBC), and the impact of sanewashing on journalism (RS: Poynter, NPR).
This same RS coverage (plus others in the article) show that the concept of sanewashing passes WP:GNG in its own right.
WP:NEO is not a reason for deletion, as it states: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction)." The above sources and others are discussing the history of the term (RS: Columbia Journalism Review), its place amongst other neologisms like greenwashing (RS: Poynter), the distinction between it and other terms like paraphrasing (RS: The Week), not simply using it. This suggests WP:WORDISSUBJECT.

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jonathan Deamer. I'd elaborate but to be honest he said it better than I could. I'll just note that as a regular reader of policy-related media, I've been keeping an eye on this word/concept for a while now and it only seems to be gaining traction as a good shorthand for a useful concept. Lockesdonkey (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd never heard of this term until today but it appears to be sourced reliably. [1] Andre🚐 01:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - notable and has been widely used Superb Owl (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Commonly used in RS. BootsED (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and Withdraw given the consensus here. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk/Contribs} 19:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque exonyms

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, France, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is consistent with similar decisions—I see no reason why so many exonym lists exist. Are any such articles notable? pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTGLOSSARY provides that a list of words is encyclopedic only when the article provides an in-depth explanation for the significance of such a list (see, for example, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. I don't believe the list of Basque exonyms provides opportunity for such analysis. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Finland. toweli (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Finnish names for random places around the world are not encyclopedic; however, Finnish names for parts of Russia that used to be a part of Finland are encyclopedic, and the same might pertain to Sweden and Norway - Finns/Kven are a recognized minority in Norway and some places in Norway e.g. Porsanger have official Finnish names. Indeed, there is a Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. Perhaps there also should be a Finnish exonyms for places in Russia, and maybe Sweden, and this main Finnish exonyms page be an index for those two/three. Remove the rest. Geschichte (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a few nontrivial entries in the Baltic States. —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better to have an article about Toponymy in Karelia instead of focusing on the exonym aspect, as it might be difficult to separate Finnish and Karelian names, and Karelian names are not exonyms anyway. There could also be an article about Toponymy in the Karelian Isthmus, which is a special case, since the all the names were changed there in the 1940s. This would discuss both the old Finnish/Karelian names and the Soviet replacement names. See for example the book reviewed at https://agricolaverkko.fi/review/karjalankannaksen-toponyminen-katastrofi/ Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is reasonable to cull exonyms that are simply a matter of spelling rules (in effect, a transliteration). But the rest are useful. There has been an attempted stealth cull of these pages. There should have been an announcement at least on Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 05:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some good sources discussing Finnish exonyms here:
- https://kaino.kotus.fi/eksonyymit/
- https://kielitoimistonohjepankki.fi/ohje/eksonyymit-eli-kansalliset-sovinnaisnimet/ (see the links at the bottom).
- https://kielikello.fi/pahdatista-bagdadiin-ulkomaiset-nimet-suomen-kielessa/

I don't think there is that much useful content in the current article, but a new article could probably be written based on these sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Armenia. toweli (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Just because the French article was deleted, that does not automatically validate the others being deleted as well. There are around ~45 other "exonym" articles which still exist. They should all be nomed for deletion if we are going to use WP:NOTDICT as our justification. It is not fair to omit any of them based on this policy. If the policy isn't applied more fairly, I'd lean to a Keep and improve for this article. Archives908 (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  A mass deletion failed a few months ago because not all such lists are equally trivial. So they are being nominated separately. —Tamfang (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki no evidence that WP:NLIST is met. Archives908, are you aware of significant RS coverage about Armenian exonyms as a group? (t · c) buidhe 13:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As usual, nearly all the entries are trivial examples of the necessity of adapting borrowed words to a new phonology. —Tamfang (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Can be significantly expanded and improved, I don't think WP:TNT is worth it. Archives908 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that expansion of trivia is a good thing. —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romansh exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Switzerland. toweli (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Azuredivay (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym.OsFish (talk) 08:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes this specific list wiki-notable? Which reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic of Romansch exonyms? I'm not aware of any policy that would presume automatic notability for lists of exonyms. There have been attempts to group exonym articles into one AfD nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of names of European cities in different languages and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. They failed due to the large amount of articles being considered, resulting in no consensus (and some of the articles, such as Chinese exonyms, seem to be notable, due to having been discussed in sources). So, I couldn't have bundled many nominations together, and instead opted for an individual approach. Admittedly, I hadn't considered posting on Talk:Endonym and exonym, fair enough. And I also could've explained my approach, and the reasons for it, in the nominations. toweli (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estonian exonyms

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; an alternative to reading this article would be reading an Estonian dictionary. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms, which resulted in the French equivalent of this article being deleted. As argued there, this list is an indiscriminate list of place names. I agree that an article about the linguistic and historical aspects of the formation of place names in Estonian would be notable, but that is not what this is. SJD Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and Estonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While this Afd discussion was up, the articles for Galician/Maltese/Catalan/Swedish exonyms were deleted for the same reasoning

SJD Willoughby (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right but I know other articles on exonyms that were sent to AFD have been kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Bulgaria. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worth keeping if it excludes obvious respellings. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so Soft Deletion isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles