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

Scannata

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

Unsourced, WP:NOTDICT, etc. This was originally obfuscated spam for a record company but the creator removed the spammy part after I applied G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not dictionary. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. It is just like any other word - not notable enough to have an article. Asteramellus (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-ington

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

Move to Wiktionary - dicdef with list. Compare wikt:-ton#Derived terms --Altenmann >talk 00:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary per nom.

ApexParagon (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wiktionary — Maile (talk) 02:30, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about Redirect to List of generic forms in place names in the British Isles? —Tamfang (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea (you mean "merge/redirect", right?), but the list must be moved to wiktionary anyway. --Altenmann >talk 06:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not merge; I see little point in retaining the list of examples. —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The top of the page has good referenced encyclopedic text to merge. --Altenmann >talk 00:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Languages (YouTube)

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

This YouTube channel does not meet the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the cited sources, it is clear that there is a lack of significant, independent, and reliable coverage necessary to establish notability. The first two sources are interviews with the subject, which are inherently not independent and cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The third source, published by the University of Münster (uni-muenster), also fails the independence test, as the host of the YouTube channel appears to be an alumna of the same university. The fifth source cited in the article does not mention the YouTube channel at all. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Germany. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed a broken link which was the reason why the fifth source was being claimed as irrelevant. In addition, the idea that writing about an alumna is a conflict of interest seems spurious to me. This seems like the same idea as arguing that academic journals are default biased by focusing on a specific topic; the topic here is just "alumni/ae of the University of Münster" instead of something like "education". Mcavoybickford (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate you fixing the broken link. That said, the source is just a directory/listicle that briefly mentions Easy German among other channels. It is only a few lines with no real depth and would not count as significant coverage by Wikipedia standards for establishing the subject's notability.

And yes, the uni-muenster article does not seem to be independent. It is full of quotes from the subject and there's even a disclaimer at the top stating This text is taken from the alumni|sponsor magazine of the university newspaper 'wissen|leben,' summer semester 2022 issue. That magazine features stories submitted by their own alumni. Anyone who attended the university can send in their story to be featured.

Wikipedia expects significant coverage to be both substantial and independent of the subject, which isn't the case here. Junbeesh (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: A thesis [1] and some discussion in a journal [2], with the other sources in the article we should be able to build a basic/stub article. Oaktree b (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Catalan-language paper here [3]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These alone do not establish notability, though they may contribute toward it. The primary requirement is that the subject must have received sufficient, significant coverage in multiple secondary sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. Junbeesh (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think the journal article and Catalan paper are two significant independent reliable sources, as is The Local [4]. With the other borderline sources I think there's just about enough to push this into notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish place names in other countries

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

All but one entry is uncited. This fails WP:NLIST; we really need to crack down on these old, uncited naming-related lists. E_F⁵ 13:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, list is based on an arbitrary, non-defining and trivial characteristic. Speaking to the OP's concern about a lack of citations, place name origins are often historically disputed, obscure, based on misunderstandings or poor Anglicization (e.g., Canadian, Texas), or even arbitrary (e.g., numerous American communities renamed by the U.S. Postal Service to avoid duplication). And what if the community is named after a person, geographical feature, or other community with a name similar to an Irish place? All of these factors may cast doubt on whether some entries are legitimately "Irish". Carguychris (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NLIST. Raymond3023 (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There do appear to be sources for Irish place names in various countries, for example Irish Place Names in Australia [5] and "Australia's Irish Place Names" in The Australasian Journal of Irish Studies [; Dictionary of Southern African Place Names [6] which identifies those that are named after places in Ireland; The Master Book of Irish Placenames has an appendix of Irish place names in America [7]; Irish Place-names in America was published in 1963 [8]; "Gaelic Surnominal Place-Names in Ireland and Their Reflection in Argentina" in Studi irlandesi : a Journal of Irish Studies (2021); The Origin and Meaning of Place Names in Canada [9] notes places in Canada named for places in Ireland - etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list of interesting and Rebecca has decent sources that could be added, but it needs major clean-up if kept. It's pretty crappy right now: most of the place articles don't actually verify that they're named after the Irish places; Longford, Victoria, Shannon, Alabama and Moorefield, Ohio are just a few found in a quick scan that are not and should be removed.
Reywas92^Talk 14:36, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Reywas92, then add WP:TNT to my nom statement. This is too decrepit to be saved. — E_F⁵ 14:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bangor is another that has no business being in this list: it's Welsh, not Irish. More generally, I'd go for delete, for the reasons others have given, but I don't feel strongly about it. Athel cb (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think Bangor is just Welsh, there is Bangor, County Down. But whether any Bangors in the list are named for the Irish place is unclear. A number of Bangors do mention the Welsh Bangor in their articles and those should be removed. A place like Bangor, California should be also be removed as its article says it is named for Bangor, Maine. Declangi (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep with the condition of citations and extra context being added (as per WP:NOTLIST). Also I would recommend turning each list into 3 columns so the page is easier to navigate. Afonso Dimas Martins (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, RebeccaGreen has done very good work in finding sources. The list could be initially pruned by delisting entries such as those I mentioned above for Bangor. Having a placename in common with one in Ireland is not sufficient, a list entry should demonstrably be named directly for a place in Ireland. Declangi (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles