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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani kinship terms

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

Unnecessary as Wiktionary has Cat:ur:Family and Cat:hi:Family. Note that this is not the same as Chinese kinship or Irish kinship as it doesn't explain the system, rather simply lists various kinship terms which isn't really encyclopædic. "Hindustani kinship" would perhaps be an encyclopædic topic, but not this. — Ö S M A N (talk · contribs) 11:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete clearly a piece of Hindustani-English dictrionary. The words re even not used inEnglish languge. 17:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
delete entries from dictionary. a few of which are incorrect/disputed. Many castes/regions find the terms like Baṛe Pāpā (बड़े पापा, بڑے پاپا) - One's father's elder brother highly offensive, and do not use them. They deny the terms are actually part of the "tradition", sourcing is not available for each term, making it original research. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 08:28, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Association of Conference Interpreters

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

Fails notability. I have found no reliable sources, and no significant coverage beyond their own website. PROD'd by LibStar but contested by an IP. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and Japan. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is required for sufficient notability? The organization is oeprated primarily in Japanese but has held activities outside of Japan.

Example:

https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/events/workshop-japan-association-conference-interpreters-jaci-02-27-2020

Referenced in an academic publication as well.

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429297878-16/conference-interpreting-japan-kayoko-takeda-kayo-matsushita 2404:7A80:3021:18F0:FC93:A514:9B96:4A9B (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability sets out the requirements for notability. Notability is not determined by the organisation itself but by the sources available for it. For a subject to be notable there must be significant coverage, which is reliable and independent of the source. Weirdguyz (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the google news comes from https://www.middlebury.edu/ . Unless someone can find indepth coverage in Japanese, this fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google throws up sources talking about the organisation, including this academic article https://incontextjournal.org/index.php/incontext/article/download/78/44 , this article about contests the organisation holds https://www.icu.ac.jp/en/news/2406281000.html , and this event advice company https://eventflare.io/expert-advice/tokyo/top-rated-translators-and-interpreters-in-tokyo-for-corporate-events , which seems like enough to go on with. I’m not going to put info from them into the article yet, because I’m getting a bit sick of fixing up articles just for them to be deleted anyway, but if the decision is Keep, I’ll come back and do it in a week or so. Absurdum4242 (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also. Can’t get access just now, but the academic publication that poster Starting 2404… etc, posted seems to be legit too, though I’d need to crack it open to be 100% sure. Absurdum4242 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Eventflare article is definitely not reliable, being little more than a Listicle advertisement. The International Christian University article is dubiously reliable, and also is not SIGCOV for JACI itself, as it is about two students who received prizes from a JACI hosted competition. The Tsurata article comes the closest to being good, but I don't think two paragraphs is SIGCOV, and regardless Tsurata is not independent as she is also a member of JACI. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check, why is it you think that the International Christian University article is of dubious reliability? Have they been doing some dodgy tabloid stuff I’m unaware of? Also, I can’t see how coverage of events held by an organisation, and other things an organisation does don’t count as SigCov?

As for the Tsurata article, which was published in a refereed academic journal I’ll note, while Tsurata is herself a member, she was not in this case speaking for the organisation, and is writing more generally about several organisations in the sector in Japan. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the reliability of the ICU article, it's frankly the quality of the article which makes me doubt the reliability. Also, the reason it's not SIGCOV is there just isn't enough about the organisation. Sure, SIGCOV doesn't need to be the main focus of an article, but it needs to still be in-depth, which the ICU article isn't.

And regardless of whether she was speaking for the organisation or not, Tsurata is a member of JACI and is not independent when writing about it. Weirdguyz (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That…. Seems like a real stretch Re Tsurata’s independence. Are you suggesting Americans aren’t independent when talking about America? And doctors are independent when talking about medical bodies they belong to - the AMA say? Absurdum4242 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that a member of an organisation is not independent when writing about that organisation. Are you suggesting that Americans aren't independent when talking about America is an astonishingly vacuous argument. And yes, a doctor talking about a body they are a member of is similarly not independent. I think you are misunderstanding why I'm pointing these things out. WP:GNG specifically requires independent and reliable SIGCOV to establish notability. A source written by a member of an organisation cannot be used to establish notability for that organisation. Sure, you can carefully use that source for information within the article, but it is not independent and so does not contribute to notability. Weirdguyz (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the linked sources provide independent SIGCOV. This organization does not seem notable. CarringtonMist (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. While I deeply appreciate Absurdum4242's search for additional sources, upon review, I find them unconvincing to establish notability under NCORP. Tsuruta 2024 may be the highest quality one, but two brief paragraphs of coverage in a 24 page-article in a single, new journal does not ultimately tip the scale. The Middlebury pages are entirely primary and therefore adds no weight. I find it unlikely that Takeda 2021 will provide SIGCOV. The ICU blog post is similarly primary. And the Eventflare listicle I discount for both SIGCOV and likely PRIMARY reasons. In conclusion, I do not find notability here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:13, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway

AfDs for this article:

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

Uncited and not notable. In the past 12 years an enormous amount of uncited info has been added to the internet. So at least we could delete some. Wikipedians opinion on uncited articles may have changed since the last discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, Finland, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be considered alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark (2nd nomination), since that article was split from this one. Where has WP:BEFORE been done? "...uncited info has been added to the internet [so] at least we could delete some" is not a valid reason for deletion; the issue is, do sources for this article exist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name is wrong, since the Finnish names are usually endonyms: either Forest Finnish or Kvenish origin. Purely Finnish exonyms can be found from Finnish exonym database. List of Kvenish names can be found from a database (see also the "about" page). Discussion about the place names can be found in this article in Kielikello (in Finnish), and this article (in Norwegian). Also here: Språkrådet. The official toponymic guidelines also discuss Kven names. The topic is notable, although there's not much of an article here, and it needs a better name. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some discussion about Forest Finnish names: https://kielikello.fi/kaskisuomalaisista-metsasuomalaisiksi/ Perhaps rename as ~~Kven and Finnish place names in Norway~~ Kven place names. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position here: I don't find a mere list of place names appropriate per WP:NOT (and WP:NOTDICT), but an article that discusses how those names emerged, their legal status etc. is fine. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least this one, unlike most exonym listicles, gives itself a boundary: those names authoritatively recognized, in a limited field. —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isnt even an article in Finnish wiki, altho as above at least it is limited and grounded in a real world consideration. Metallurgist (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've expanded the article to focus exclusively on Kven place names, as that appears to be the best-documented topic. I'm not opposed to including information on Finnish exonyms or Forest Finnish place names, but for now I've left those out. I didn't make any changes to the list of place names, though I think it should be trimmed or at least organized according to some principle. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very much a notable topic in connection to Norwegian language policy and Norwegianization, as the sources in the article show. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:59, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. The nomination rationale is not valid grounds for article deletion. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovene exonyms

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

When I click the cite I get a warning that it may be a deceptive website Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Slovenia. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I replaced the link that generates a warning with a safe older archived version and added the official government source for these names. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added another reference from the corresponding article in Slovenian to demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sole reason stated for deletion is apparently that an external link had expired, which is not a valid reason to delete an article. Doremo (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That does look like a procedural speedy keep. I look forward to the next nomination under WP:NOTDICT. —Tamfang (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per WP:CSK#3, no accurate deletion rationale has been expressed. Let'srun (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the people who voted keep 12 years ago have added any sources. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Finland. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be considered alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway (2nd nomination), since this article was split from that one. Where has WP:BEFORE been done? "None of the people who voted keep 12 years ago have added any sources." is not a valid reason for deletion; the issue is, do such sources exist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When skimming through this list I came across the clearly nonsensical "Korsonpuorrä". But neither Google nor Bing turn up any results for "Korsonpuorra" without the Ä at the end, which is what I assume was intended. So it seems like at the very least WP:TNT would indicate getting rid of this as at least some of the information just seems to be wrong. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of a deeper look, it seems that the Kven name of the place is the more sensible Kursunpörä, and "Korsonpuorrä" is the Norwegian transcription of that name. Sensible in Kven, that is, as the Standard Finnish form of this would presumably be "Kursunperä". I.e. it looks like the page is mixing up three different languages - Norwegian, Kven and Finnish. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. This is just a listing of names from a geographical database. The reader would be better served by a link to https://www.kvenskestedsnavn.no and a real article which gives some background, and that should be the main article Finnish exonyms for places in Norway. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – !voting keep does not obligate anyone to add sources. !voting doesn't obligate anyone to do anything. The biggest issue with the page is actually that it doesn't differentiate between Finnish and Kven.

Ike Lek (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:36, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Edinburgh School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences

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

No independent RS on the page. Nothing to suggest this university department has independent notability outwith of University of Edinburgh JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Philosophy, Schools, Psychology, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Not notable for a standalone article and relevant content on its existence can be merged/added to the main university article. Coldupnorth (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted. Lilith 908 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Serbian Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or Serbia delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable unless a Serbian can convince us otherwise. I agree with Sebirkhan that a move as suggested might be good too. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – A list that just translates place names into another language is not usually sufficient for WP:NOTDICT, however it may still serve a valid navigational purpose if the translated names listed are not based on the locations' current widely used name, but are entirely separate names. For instance, Cheb used to be inhabitted primarily by German-speaking people who used the name Eger for the town, which was derived from Latin. The currently more widely used Czech name emerged mostly unrelated to the older German name, which is still the name used by many German-speakers to refer to the town. A list consisting of mostly cases of this sort is valuable for navigation, and tends to apply to areas that changed hands between groups that spoke different languages frequently throughout history. This is especially useful when locations have multiple unrelated names that are still widely in use. The only instances of this I noticed in this article were: Oradea, Székesfehérvár, Thessaloniki, Ptolemaida, Polykastro, maybe Giannitsa, Edessa, Vienna, maybe Eisenstadt, and Burgenland. I could honestly go either way on if this is enough to justify a full list, but if the article does end up deleted, the Latin-alphabet Serbian exonyms for each of these places should be added as redirects. I also did want to make an important note that moving the page to Serbian Wikipedia, as suggested by the nomination, makes absolutely no sense, as Serbian Wikipedia already uses the Serbian-language/Serbo-Croatian names for all its articles, because that is the language it is written in. – Ike Lek (talk) 00:30, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese exonyms

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms

Articles for deletion/Chinese exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Chinese Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Sebirkhan (talk) 15:23, Sebirkhan July 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topic: Lists. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]
~~Delete~~ per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Sebirkhan (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly malformed nomination--discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and not transcluded to a daily log. Nominator transcluded discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists but not to the Language or China delsort lists as indicated above. I believe that I have fixed all of these. @Sebirkhan: I struck your bolded delete as redundant, as the fact of your nomination is an implicit delete !vote. For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 18:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Per WP:SKCRIT #3, entirely erroneous nomination without a valid rationale. The article isn't even that bad, could use some work sure, but so can everything else. MediaKyle (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previous AfD (where multiple editors called out this article for keeping in a bundled nom) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms Jumpytoo Talk 08:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the pervious AfD, and because the deletion rationale makes no sense. Should we delete every article discussing for example Russian culture and make editors create them in Russian Wikipedia only? Of course we don't, and it's the same idea here. Jumpytoo Talk 08:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic meets WP:GNG as there are multiple independent sources covering Chinese exonyms as a topic of genuine study and academic interest (i.e. history, methodology and analysis of the translation of foreign place names into Chinese). This goes far beyond a simple glossary of terms and/or translations. Here are a few of these sources in English -- many more exist in Chinese which can be seen from the citations in these sources:

Wensheng Qu, Translation of Personal and Place Names from and into Chinese in Modern China: A Lexicographical History Perspective, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law
Magnus Fiskesjö, The Animal Other: China's Barbarians and Their Renaming in the Twentieth Century, Social Text, Duke University Press.
Kaitlyn Ugoretz, Distinguishing the 'Barbarian': Chinese Exonyms and Characterizations of the Other Across Eurasia, Working Paper
Qin Weifen, Wang Difei, Transliteration of Indonesian Geographical Names into Chinese, Jurnal Humaniora
Henry Serruys, Place Names along China's Northern Frontier, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Feng-fan Hsieh, Transcribing foreign names, section from Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Lingustics, vol 4

Thus I believe a keep is warranted. Richard Ye^talk 13:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sebirkhan above quotes my usual rant about exonym lists, but this one is more than a bare list. —Tamfang (talk) 01:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. Knox490 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources in academic journals and books found by Richard Ye (talk · contribs). The sources definitively show that Chinese exonyms passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. 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.
The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Cunard (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms. The topic is clearly notable. I don't understand the nominator's suggestion of moving an English-language article to the Chinese Wikipedia. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Makes absolutely no sense to move to Chinese Wikipedia. Chinese Wikipedia should already be using Chinese exonyms. Ike Lek (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slovak exonyms (Vojvodina)

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

Not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – page serves a useful navigational purpose. Ike Lek (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like this was created by some one (likely) from that region in 2009 as a niche curiosity, but the notability on here is questionable. Slovak wikipedia would be a good location. They also created Rusyn exonyms (Vojvodina) and Romanian exonyms (Vojvodina), which should have the same fate. Metallurgist (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree, Slovak Wikipedia should be the location for this, not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. With two of the Keep participants withdrawing their !vote since the last relist, I now see a consensus to delete the list. Any editor is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect to List of placenames in Vojvodina in different languages, List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina, or any appropriate page. Ping me if you need the deleted history for a possible merge. Owen× ☎ 15:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina

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

Normally at least 2 cites are needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Keep~~ - This does seem marginally useful, although admitted only in very niche situations. I sampled a few of the pages, and most reiterate the information on the list, which generally satisfies the need for citing that they meet inclusion criteria. Could be a helpful page when doing research, especially using older sources. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening and relisting in my individual capacity as an uninvolved admin, per WP:REOPEN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a Google Scholar search shows this is a topic even in English, see [1]. SportingFlyer T·C 11:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the nominator is mistaken. An article can be notable with zero citations. It will need to be improved, yes, but notability is not based on the current state of the article but rather the topic as a whole. SportingFlyer T·C 11:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst this is true, we are supposed to be assessing the likelihood that sources exist which oftentimes is a judgment call. !keep voters often argue that sources exist on very old unsourced pages, not always with much evidence. JMWt (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that still needs to be done as a result of a BEFORE search, not just AfDing an article based on its state. SportingFlyer T·C 12:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (striking as agree with the good work and sensible suggestion below) - per WP:NLIST One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Whilst this can be difficult to assess for non-English topics, I highly doubt that they don't exist given the region and language. I agree with SportingFlyer that the paper "THE USE OF MULTILINGUAL PLACE NAMES IN VOJVODINA, SERBIA" in the publication offered above is a decent introduction to the topic and that there are other sources referenced there which could be used as citations for this page. JMWt (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As an even more niche version of Serbian exyonms which was deleted (for reasons of WP:NOT rather than notability) at AfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely because it is more niche is why it might be more encyclopedic. Ike Lek (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thought I voted on this already, but it seems extremely specific. Serbian exonyms is already gone. Metallurgist (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we have deleted Serbian exonyms? SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:Articles for deletion/Serbian exonyms. JMWt (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That seems crazy to me, but I wasn't able to quickly identify that Serbian sources on the topic. It was easier to find sources for this topic. SportingFlyer T·C 20:34, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people who supported deletion of the main Serbian exonyms article. This one is different because it is specific to a notable subset and not an indiscriminate list. Ike Lek (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that lists of exonyms which are referenced and make sense should be kept. There's a historical logic why certain places have exonyms in certain languages. I can't see what the content was of the other page that was deleted at AfD, but to me the one we are discussing here has a clear logic as to why there are many Serbian exonyms in the area. I'm not even sure I would have !voted !delete for the Serbian exonyms article and am considering DRV as it doesn't feel like the sources were discussed there in much detail. JMWt (talk) 20:08, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves, the page was mostly or entirely unsourced. This one has more potential to be encyclopedic. Ike Lek (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed multiple times daily, the point is not about sources on the page but whether they likely exist. It would be a perverse outcome if this was kept whilst the other was deleted because sources for this article are clearly also sources for the other. JMWt (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not want to keep this article? I do support keeping this article. Ike Lek (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If seen as a "List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina", this list is, well ... Something got lost in translation there. The following is a random sampling:
Bački Brestovac and Brestovac are equally Serbian names. Banatski Brestovac also allegedly had the "Serbian exonym" Brestovac. These are just two villages originally named Brestovac, one located in Bačka (a historical region partially within Vojvodina; matching adjective: Bački) and the other one in Banat (same as prev.; matching adjective: Banatski). Over time, due to administrative/record-keeping reasons, their official names were differentiated per region. Both villages have been inhabited by Serbs since before their names were "expanded". No exonyms involved.
Some of the names may be former official names but still see some use, for example Nadrljan for Adorjan. Legitimately few Serbs have ever lived in Adorjan and we could be speaking of an exonym candidate here. But, as I said, the name Nadrljan still sees live use: proof. So it cannot be a "former Serbian exonym". That would rather be an "unofficial (still somewhat used) Serbian not-quite-exonym".
Gomboš (listed on the right side) is alleged to be the Serbian name, but it is the Hungarian name, whereas Bogojevo (listed on the left side) is the Serbian name. But, Gombos is the currently official (not former anything of any kind—PDF of a provincial government gazette—Ctrl+F: Gombos) Hungarian name for Bogojevo. The only thing that makes this non-Serbian name "Serbian" is the Serbian spelling "Gomboš". But everything is spelled phonetically in Serbian. I can take a Lao village in Laos that was never mentioned by any Serbian speaker in history and transcribe it into Serbian. So what? It would still be the native Lao name and not an exonym. By the same standard, Adorjan (current official name spelled like that in Serbian and spelled Adorján in Hungarian ... yes, your eyes are straining) would be a "Serbian exonym".
Lazarfeld (listed on the right side), what to say... The village was founded by German colonists, who named it Lazarfeld (yes, they named it after the "Serbian exonym" from the future I guess) after a certain local Armenian man named Lazar, adding -feld to his name, as typical of German-settler placenames. It's a German name through and through.
These are not Serbian-language exonyms, and often they are not exonyms in any group-location relationship. What this list would seem to be is a linguistically irrelevant (no linguistic criterion) collection of certain older placenames collected from 18th and 19th century sources written in Serbian. So the list selection criteria here would ostensibly (read further) be "The names of various towns and villages of Vojvodina that one author encountered during their study of 18th- and 19th-century history of Vojvodina".
But, finally, I have access to this source, and I can't verify that this list exists in it. I have the first edition from 1961 in PDF, but I also have the table of contents of the second edition (link) and it is the same as the contents of the first edition, and it would seem that this is original research! Booo—Alalch E. 03:04, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a lot to read, but I appreciate the thoroughness. Maybe a better idea would be to expand the tables in List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina to include the different language names of various settlements. Vojvodina, being a very multiethnic part of Serbia, has a lot of language diversity. If very few of the list entries are true exonyms, and the ones that are true exonyms are still in use, then it might make sense to just include the different language names in List of cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina. I'd be willing to work on that if you had any suggestions for good sources to use. Ike Lek (talk) 03:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this seems to me to be a good way forward. If the list is OR and misleading then that's a good reason for delete. If useful parts of the content can be kept elsewhere, that's even better. JMWt (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I invite both of you to look at Special:Permalink/1301115984 (those are current official names in different languages with official status, for those places that have an official minority language name designation). Here, in this process, however, it's time to agree to delete this fake "List of former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina" page that is nominated for deletion because it's originally researched nonsense as I have explained. —Alalch E. 05:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your understanding of the situation. There are many dialects in the region and Vojvodina has several different dialects - there is not just one Serbian language, and . Furthermore there's no list, but we can clearly see from this book [2] that different names of towns have changed over time. It's also worth noting the region was a frontier and was settled by different groups of people. I'm not a very fast reader in Cyrillic, so I can't speak to exactly what's going on here, but Petrovac, for instance, was a Slovak centre in the region. And Knićanin was Rudolfsgrad for a couple years after it was founded, showing that it was likely an actual exonym. It's a bit difficult, but I do think there's something notable here, especially given the history of Vojvodina. SportingFlyer T·C 08:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your understanding of the situation. There are many dialects in the region and Vojvodina has several different dialects - there is not just one Serbian language—you didn't say anything with this. Does not interact with anything I said, and no argument is included. There are multiple languages in the region first of all, starkly different languages. Hungarian isn't even in the same language family as the rest. Serbian is a Slavic language. Romanian is a Romance language. German is a Germanic language... And what about it? Who's questioning that? There are dialects of some of those languages involved too, but why even mention dialects? It doesn't seem like you have an idea of what you're talking about. Just pointing that out to you.
Rudolfsgnad is on the right side of the list, a purported Serbian exonym. But Rudolfsgnad is the native German name. It's like saying London (sr:London) is a Serbian exonym. An example of a Serbian exonym is sr:Rim for Rome. Not Rudolfsgnad for Rudolfsgnad! It is a German native name. Shortly after the territory Rudolfsgnad lies within became a part of the Serb-dominated kingdom, the name was officially changed to Knićanin, and Knićanin is the last name of Stevan Knićanin, again, an endonym. Serbs had lived there by that time and adopted "Knićanin" as the native name.
If tou want a list of "Historical place names in Vojvodina" great, create the article. This isn't it. This is nothing, it's nonsense. —Alalch E. 09:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
London is a Serbian exonym for London. It just happens to be that the exonym matches the English name for the place.

Your language family analogy doesn't make much sense regarding the notability of the list. Šumadija–Vojvodina dialect is a specific dialect of Serbian. During the time of settlement, many of these speakers didn't necessarily live in the region. I also need to say you're getting close to commenting on me, not on the content of the article.

It's also not nonsense - it appears to be an overlap of exonyms and historical place names, like Vojvodina. Furthermore, if you have a PDF copy of the book, it would be helpful to post a link so we can all have a look. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
London is a Serbian exonym for London. Come on... I can't read further than that. —Alalch E. 10:09, 18 July 2025 (UTC) . . . I've read it. I didn't make an analogy, I was telling you that you are talking about some dialects yet do not even know what you are talking about, as the languages are very different and are not dialects of one another. Just a way to illustrate to you how you lack the faintest idea about the relevant concepts. About downloading the book, I potentially should not post the link because of WP:COPYVIOEL. —Alalch E. 10:11, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about right now either, apart from the fact you're directly attacking me. Taking a closer look, this page was translated into the Serbian, and looking at it more closely, the Serbian page does not mention exonyms. The Serbian page this is based on is titled "Bivši srpski nazivi za naselja u Vojvodini," or Former Serbian names for settlements in Vojvodina, Serbian meaning the language. Some of these would have been exonyms at the time. Some of them may have been exonyms in different dialects of Serbo-Croatian, but that's not clear here. If this is a list of former Serbian names of settlements in Vojvodina, I think that passes NLIST even more clearly, and just needs to be renamed. SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not supported by the source. Some of those names are Serbian some are not. The source does not list "Serbian names", it lists "Names". The subject of the source is not "Serbian colonization", it is colonization, and great many towns and villages are listed at the end, not looking anything like this Wikipedia list. The Wikipedia editor who created this page picked those names that are connected to extant placenames and named those non-extant placenames "Serbian". The book is not about "Serbian names" and the word "exonym" does not appear in the book. Preposterous original research. It is NOT a list of former Serbian names of settlements in Vojvodina. —Alalch E. 01:57, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source would not mention Serbian because the language would be obvious, though. It's also not original research as the other source shows. Also the fact you can't even point to where a copy of the source might exist is frustrating. SportingFlyer T·C 16:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite is obvious. Also, what you say is not original research is in fact original research, and the "other source" shows nothing of the sort. To go back to my Lazarfeld example, in a chapter discussing German colonization of Syrmia it is stated that "Lazarfeld — today Lazarevo" is a German settlement. The original researcher takes this and says "a-ha, Lazarfeld is a former Serbian-language exonym", a statement that is not included in the book. When the writer wants to make a statement about the language dimension of the toponymy, he is explicit; for example:
Prvo slovačko naselje evangeličke veroispovesti u Banatu nalazilo se blizu Modoša, - Slovanski Bardan /Pordanj pre turske okupacije; po srpskom izgovoru Pardanj/.
transl. The first Slovak settlement of the Evangelical confession in the Banat was located near Modoš — Slovanski Bardan /Pordanj before the Turkish occupation; in Serbian pronunciation Pardanj/.

So when it is a Serbian name (Pardanj), this is explicitly indicated, and Slovanski Bardan must be inferred to be the Slovak name. Naturally, and obviously (contrarily to what you baselessly named obvious), when using non-Serbian names, the author does not specify "this is an [X other language] name", because which language is concerned is contextually tied to which ethnic group is discussed—here, the Slovaks. Also, what you say is frustrating is not at all frustrating. —Alalch E. 02:21, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent argument until the last sentence, which just comes across needlessly rude. I assume this is due to some language barrier. What people find frustrating is subjective. Ike Lek (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very comfortable not violating WP:COPYVIOEL and I deny anyone's feelings of frustration over that. I also properly formatted the reference and added the COBISS link which includes the table of contents.—Alalch E. 04:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you aren't in the wrong for not linking it. You didn't do anything wrong there. You did enough for them to be able to find it.

However you shouldn't deny their feeling of frustration. It weakens your argument by making you sound needlessly unkind. You could always say "I'm sorry you find that frustrating, but I am not going to violate WP:COPYVIOEL" or just not respond to that part.

This is getting off topic though. I already struck my vote, and I think the table you made better fills the roll this article is attempting to. Ike Lek (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do think the title of this article may be a language issue, as it is the same as a Serbian article, but I still don't know why the actual data is an issue here. SportingFlyer T·C 08:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alalch E says above I have access to this source, and I can't verify that this list exists in it. But WP:NLIST doesn't say that the source has to include the list or all items in the list per: 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. I don't read the language of the source, but if it states that places exist that have alternative names in Serbian, that would appear to be a sign of notability even though it didn't publish the placenames or all of the placenames. JMWt (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous and tendentious. —Alalch E. 09:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? It's a notability guideline and we are discussing whether the topic meets it. There's nothing "tendentious" I can see, particularly given that I've already agreed with you that OR content should be removed. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just explained above that this is originally researched nonsense with plenty well-argued and nicely put together examples. I'm not going to blank the page during an AfD. That is what removing OR content would be. There is no topic to speak of, the topic is a concoction. A topic of a Wikipedia list about Vojvodina place names in history could, for example, be: "List of former place names in Vojvodina" or "List of name changes of cities, towns and villages of Vojvodina". A member of Category:Lists of former place names. And this is not it. This is a fake "former Serbian exonyms in Vojvodina" nothing. I have determined that the criterion is not that they are Serbian, it is not that they exonyms, and some of the right side entries are current official names in the language that they exist in. The book does not support the statements "X place name is a (1) former (2) Serbian (3) exonym of Y". A "List of former place names in Vojvodina" would not be based on that template statement at all, but would be a list of former place names, i.e., it would be based on the statement "When X settlement was founded its name was A, then it changed to B, then it changed to C, and, in parallel, potentially, in a different language it was A*, then it changed to B*, and in yet a third relevant language for the region during a given period it was A**, etc." And maybe, m a y b e would it make sense to analyze some of those names as exonyms. —Alalch E. 10:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense, though. It's becoming more evident this is a list of former names of settlements in Vojvodina, possibly from a mistranslation. Some of them may have been exonyms at one point. SportingFlyer T·C 20:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are many of them not exonyms; many of them are not former names, and are actually currently used and officially recognized. Ike Lek (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could give a couple examples. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alalch E. already gave the examples of Nadrljan for Adorjan, and Gomboš being both not Serbian and currently used. Ike Lek (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gomboš isn't currently used, though - Gombos is, the š letter is not used in Hungarian, so the Gomboš would have been a Serbian name (and potentially an exonym.) And, despite the usage in a single article, Nadrljan is a former name according to the Serbian Encyclopedia: [3] The Serbian name was Nadrljan. This genealogy website says it was the name until 1978 along with listing many other former names: [4] which is also confirmed by the census [5]. So it's not incorrect to say it's a former name. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Maybe the page does have usefulness, but it is absolutely titled incorrectly at the very least. Especially because not all of the former names are from Serbian. Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now created List of placenames in Vojvodina in different languages, and while the book is going to be useful, I find the Wikipedia list that purports to cite the book and is the subject of this AfD not to be useful. —Alalch E. 02:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every name of a Chinese city is a Serbian name because there's no Chinese characters in Serbian. —Alalch E. 02:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. Every Chinese city in Serbian is a Serbian exonym, even if it is exactly transliterated. Every language must figure out how to transliterate foreign place names into their own language - the most recent one I can remember reading about was how to spell and pronounce Qatar in Croatian language after the 2016 Water Polo finals and extending into the World Cup. SportingFlyer T·C 07:32, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just to clarify in my own mind, @Alalch E.: are you saying that your main objections are a) the list includes words that are not uniquely Serbian and b) that the places are not exonyms? @SportingFlyer: what's the issue with a merge to the list page started by Alalch E. List of placenames in Vojvodina in different languages? I'm not understanding why this disagreement is continuing. JMWt (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. I see no P&G-based arguments for retention. Owen× ☎ 16:10, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Azerbaijani exonyms

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

Perhaps this should be moved to Azerbaijani Wikipedia as it would be more notable there? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Azerbaijan. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of sources about it

https://nlevshits.com/dokument-centralnogo-ispolnitelnogo-komiteta-sssr-i-bjuro-nkvd-1936-goda-o-pereimenovanii-v-transkripciju-togo-vremeni-gruzinskih-gorodov/ Документ Центрального исполнительного комитета СССР и бюро НКВД 1936 года о переименовании в транскрипцию того времени грузинских городов
Абастумани // Большая российская энциклопедия. 1. М: Большая Российская энциклопедия. С. Л. Кравец. 2005. 10. ISBN 5-85270-329-X.
Дманиси // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IIIҹилд: Гајыбов—Елдаров. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1979. С. 488
Borçalı toponimləri. Müəlliflər: Mədəd Çobanov və Müşfiq Çobanlı; Elmi redaktorlar: f. e. d. Tofiq Əhmədov, f. e. d. Buludxan Xəlilov, f. e. d. Şurəddin Məmmədli. Əlavələr olunmuş və yenidən işlənmiş dördüncü nəşr. Bakı: "Borçalı" nəşriyyatı, 2012
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
https://az.wikisource.org/wiki/Qarabağnamə/Yeddinci_fəsil
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/community.33004082.pdf?refreqid=fastly-default%3Aa9f389e963a7aab2bad03f525118baf6&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&initiator=search-results&acceptTC=1 Azərbaycan Qəzeti, 1918, 34-cü nömrə
Ағбулаг // Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасы: [10 ҹилддә]. IXҹилд: Спутник—Фронтон. Бакы: Азәрбајҹан Совет Енсиклопедијасынын Баш Редаксијасы. Баш редактор: Ҹ. Б. Гулијев. 1986. С. 216.

Sebirkhan (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If there were something interesting to say about particular exonyms, particularly those that are unrelated to the endonym, that would be another matter. —Tamfang (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tamfang. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:54, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I am interested why some users trying to delete only turkic/muslim articles while there are a lot of similar pages in other languages. SEE: Template:Exonyms per language. For example they deleted already ONLY Turkish exonyms, and now trying do delete ONLY Azerbaijani exonyms Sebirkhan (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with religion - I am interested mostly in the country I live in and nearby countries Chidgk1 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why then, using the same logic, didn't you mark articles like the following for deletion: Slovak exonyms, Croatian exonyms, Bulgarian exonyms etc Sebirkhan (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebirkhan, they are. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 18:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hate to break it to you, but User:Chidgk1 has been on a crusade against all exonym lists for the past couple weeks. I tend to side with keeping them, but they can get to be a bit useless sometimes, making their pruning an important part of maintaining Wikipedia. Ike Lek (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic languages like Dutch, Lithuanian, Chinese, Serbian, Slovene. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In March 2024 there was an attempt to delete all of them, which failed as too sweeping. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sebirkhan As not all the exonyms listed are English how about you keep it by translating it to Azerbaijani Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, the Azerbaijani Wikipedia does not have this article, but there is a similar one: az:Köhnə Azərbaycan ekzonimlərinin siyahısı (list of old Azerbaijani exonyms).

It is based only on historical data and names that were used back when the Azerbaijani language used Arabic script.

But the article "Azerbaijani exonyms" is not relevant to Azerbaijani Wikipedia, since some names on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia are already written in Azerbaijani way, for example, İrevan instead of Yerevan. I mean that the article Azerbaijani exonyms, which exists on the English Wikipedia, is more relevant for those who do not know the Azerbaijani language and do not use the Azerbaijani Wikipedia.

and since the Azerbaijani article az:Köhnə Azərbaycan ekzonimlərinin siyahısı (list of old Azerbaijani exonyms) is based on historical data of only the Azerbaijani language, it does not contain many names that came from other Turkic languages, which are relevant for Siberia, Balkans, China, etc. which are exist in English article Azerbaijani Exonyms Sebirkhan (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, unfortunately this does not make much sense, since the Azerbaijani Wikipedia would already use the Azerbaijani names. They are more likely to have a list of English-language exonyms, for example. Ike Lek (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Increasingly coming to the view that most of these exonym lists arent notable on EN. Metallurgist (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Vistulan (Zahódnjo Wisłewski)

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

Constructed language created in 2019 and, according to the source in the article, "published" 4 days ago. It's not clear that the language is actually spoken by anyone other than its creator. Pichpich (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zahódnjo-Wisłewski is a constructed language with consistent grammar, vocabulary, and cultural context, developed since 2019. While it is primarily spoken and maintained by the creator, it is shared online and used in creative expression, conlang communities, and social media. Similar artistic languages like Toki Pona, Wenedyk, or Brithenig also began as solo projects and are accepted on Wikipedia.

The language has its own writing system, mapped vocabulary, and sociocultural backdrop (modeled after the Czernichów Commune in Poland), which shows depth beyond a mere list of made-up words. The purpose of such entries is not always mass usage, but cultural and linguistic exploration.

I kindly request that this article be kept or moved to Draft space if needed, to allow for further development and referencing. Have an great day! Pchaccxback (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Zahódnjo-Wisłewski is a structured and documented conlang created with regional and cultural depth. It has its own grammar, script, flag, and presence both online and offline. Other artistic languages like Toki Pona and Brithenig are kept on Wikipedia despite limited speakers. This article documents a creative linguistic project, not just a personal code. Rozemmer (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing is primary... I tried the Polish term -Zachodniowiślański- and only wikipedia mirrors come up. Nothing in Gnews, Scholar or Search. I don't see notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it suposed to show people the language and for people to know that an language was made. BielikooPL (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. BielikooPL (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The language has an Grammar, vocabulary , own anthem, own alphabet etc. and it would we sad because someone was working hard for an language so i think we should keep it since the creator wants this to be known. i support all conlangs. (from NL) 77.172.72.23 (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Effort is not a measure of value. —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day language. It lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. By 2019, when this was created, and certainly by now, everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn't publish original content. We are not the right place to host this - especially now when the rich and powerful are trying to destroy us. Bearian (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have semi-protected the article and blocked a new editor who kept trying to blank it (quite apart from trying to insert racist language). Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Delete - there simply isn't any reliable sources evidencing that this language isn't something simply made up by one (or a few) people. There is no evidence of its actual usage. Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because isnt this the same as other conlangs?? 89.200.14.155 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This guy has been trolling for quite some time now spreading hoaxes from many different accounts and IP adresses (see incidents entry). I'm amazed there hasn't been a reaction yet... Khan Tengri (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that’s simply not true. I’m not using other accounts or IPs and there’s no proof to back that up. Just because someone makes a conlang or edits in a niche area doesn’t mean they’re trolling. Ive been working seriously on this project and just want to share something creative. Also about the German names I only removed them because I couldn’t find any official sources showing they were ever used here. I wasn’t trying to mess with anything. And i also removed it because it was longer Polish. If you’re going to accuse someone atleast bring actual evidence. VPNs are banned anyway so how would that even work? BielikooPL (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is related to the trolling reported by Khan Tengri. I do however, believe that the accounts BielikooPL, Rozemmer and Pchaccxback are, at best, three people that know each other outside Wikipedia. According to the deleted (4 times) article on pl.wiki, the creator of this language is named "Bielikoo" so there's a likely COI to boot. Pichpich (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you’re right, me and Rozemmer know eachother but not Pchaccxback. BielikooPL (talk) 09:36, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the edit history of Pchaccxback, it is very very hard to believe that the account is independent of Rozemmer. Pichpich (talk) 16:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 05:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomous lexicon engine

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

Non-notable, borderline nonsense concept with no evidence of uptake beyond the author. All About Jazz takes user-generated pages ([6]), and the other cited source is self-published. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Cryptocurrency. ~ A412 ^talk! 02:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Delete, nothing anywhere close to reliable coverage exists. Elestrophe (talk) 12:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Possible A11 candidate; appears to be AI-generated Helpful Raccoon (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Zero reliable sources. Likely AI-generated nonsense. MidnightMayhem 18:45, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a 1 quote from the president of CASLI. Fails WP:ORG for lack of SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I greatly improved the article. This association is the national, non-profit certifying body for professional American Sign Language-English, Quebec Sign Language-French interpreters in Canada. It's been active since 1979 and provides a crucial service which is notable. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the added sources are its own website and primary. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Providing a "crucial service" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage has now been demonstrated spanning roughly four and a half decades, from publications across the country. This organization is a clear GNG pass, and more sources are likely to be found from here. MediaKyle (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess source depth and independence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A look at some of the sources. This one, this and this include a 1 line mentions and are not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one merely confirms that Ontario Association of Sign Language Interpreters supports CASLI members. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the ones under Further reading? -- MediaKyle (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Hmm, seems Alright for a separate page unless disproven. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your vote "seems Alright". You don't seem to have addressed sourcing concerns. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has been sufficiently improved and expanded. Eulersidentity (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; sourcing concerns remain unaddressed. Bare assertions are unhelpful in achieving consensus when the sources have been challenged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to highlight how far this article has come... Compare it now to when it was prodded here. Personally I think at this point it's on the nominator to tell us why all those new sources aren't sufficient. MediaKyle (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per MediaKyle.

I have also added further sources, where the organisation is discussed at length:

Janzen, Terry; Korpiniski, Donna (2005-10-26), Janzen, Terry (ed.), "Ethics and professionalism in interpreting", Benjamins Translation Library, vol. 63, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 165–199, doi:10.1075/btl.63.11jan, ISBN 978-90-272-1669-4

Russell, Debra; Malcolm, Karen (2009-10-22), Angelelli, Claudia V.; Jacobson, Holly E. (eds.),

"Assessing ASL-English interpreters: The Canadian model of national certification"

,

American Translators Association Scholarly Monograph Series

, vol. XIV, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 331–376,

doi

:

10.1075/ata.xiv.15rus

,

ISBN

978-90-272-3190-1

Russell, Debra (2019).

"International perspectives and practices in healthcare interpreting with sign language interpreters: How does Canada compare?"

. In Meng, Ji; Taibi, Mustapha; Crezee, Ineke H. M. (eds.).

Multicultural Health Translation, Interpreting and Communication

(1st ed.). London: Routledge.

ISSN

1543-0375

.

Article meets SIG:COV. SDGB1217 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am counting 4 !keep votes above. I think this is a clear case of WP:HEY m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a source analysis based on current state of article. Source 1 is its own website and primary. Source 2 appears to be a directory listing. Source 3 is a statement from the president of CASLI but does not seem to be actual coverage of CASLI. Sources 4 and 5, I need a page number to verify coverage and see actual text. Sources 7 and 8, need to see actual text quoted in this article about CASLI. Source 9 is not SIGCOV. Source 10 merely confirms OASLI is a member of CASLI. Source 11 is a 1 line mention of CASLI and not SIGCOV. On the basis of this I don't support keep. LibStar (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you've cherry picked the primary sources out of this article and entirely disregarded the depth of academic coverage. How about these sources?
- Humphrey, Janice H. (1995). So You Want to Be an Interpreter: An Introduction to Sign Language Interpreting. H & H Publishing Company. p. 96. ISBN 978-0-9640-3673-4. Retrieved 17 July 2025 – via Archive.org. - This book features an entire section on the association beginning on page 96, section titled "The Establishment of the Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada"
- Stewart, David A.; Schein, Jerome D.; Cartwright, Brenda E. (1998). Sign Language Interpreting: Exploring Its Art and Science. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. ISBN 0-2052-7540-0. Retrieved 17 July 2025 – via Archive.org. - This book covers the association in-depth throughout, with particular detail starting on page 18, section titled "Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada (AVLIC)"
- Snoddon, Kristin; Wilkinson, Erin (2022). "The institutionalization of sign language interpreting and COVID-19 briefings in Canada". Translation & Interpreting Studies. 17 (3). American Translation & Interpreting Studies Association: 359–380. doi:10.1075/tis.21005.sno. - This article provides some actually quite critical scholarly analysis of the Association and their membership practices.
- Daly, Brad; Chovaz, Cathy J. (2020). "Secondary Traumatic Stress: Effects on the Professional Quality of Life of Sign Language Interpreters". American Annals of the Deaf. 165 (3): 353–367. ISSN 1543-0375. - This article covers the mental health issues facing CASLI interpreters, and provides commentary on the lack of support provided by the association and ways it could be improved.
Why are we only talking about the primary sources here? -- MediaKyle (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cherry pick, I find that accusation offensive. I did ask for more information like page numbers and actual text that I couldn't verify. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only primary sources are from the CASLI website. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MediaKyle. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article and though primary sources cannot be used per se for notability, it otherwise stands, and primary sources can be used otherwise if independently notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly sources beyond just primary, so per MediaKyle, again this is a keep. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuanian exonyms

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

Perhaps should be moved to Lithuanian WP as I don’t see how it is notable on enwiki Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a lithuanian dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, in March 2024, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, e.g. Chinese exonyms and Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources ... Is that it? Are Lithuanian exonyms, in contrast to exonyms-in-general, discussed collectively by independent reliable sources? Does "discussion" mean more than recognition of a well-defined (though trivial) set? —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per policy, deleting this is absolutely appropriate, but why bother? There's no way for it to be promotional or COI, and it isn't misinformation. The way I see it, someone took the time to make this page because they thought it could be useful to someone, and it could be. Why get rid of that? Ike Lek (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to follow the logic in saying that, according to policy, deletion is absolutely appropriate - the corollary to which is that the article should not exist - but then say (paraphrasing) someone took the time to make it, and it could be useful, so why get rid of it? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Weirdguyz (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This should be moved to the Lithuanian wiki instead. Does not serve a purpose here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. asilvering (talk) 05:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diddy ahh blud

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV, and both of the 2 sources used in the article are questionable at best. Also largely duplicates Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations, though I'm not sure if this phrase is widely used enough to warrant a redirect. ApexParagon (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is notable, and includes some context that a Wiktionary page wouldn't be able to. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:D485:2300:170D:20D1 (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary pages can include both usage examples and etymologies. Delete. fx (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT & fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 13:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously ;-; 174.88.47.79 (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really an argument lol. 2600:6C64:4F3F:D976:6DE9:B5CB:E4FF:EC3D (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Commonly used term. It's ok to keep as a stub. Dirty Magazines (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Dirty Magazines (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closer: This vote is this user's only contribution, their account was created within the same minute as their vote. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Alexf^(talk) 08:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Diddyahhblud (talk) 10:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC) — Diddyahhblud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Maybe this can be turned into a redirect if people think that is more appropriate idk. VronaMrk30 (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to evidence notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:DICT. Kyleroo (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Glossary of Generation Z slang per WP:CHEAP and WP:ATD. Going to tag everyone in discussion to see if they agree with this idea or feel like sticking with their status quo. Angryapathy Jolielover Dirty Magazines Alexf Diddyahhblud PARAKANYAA Kyleroo Servite et contribuere (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose and still stand by my delete vote, as the term completely fails WP:GNG as it has close to no sources on it. There's nothing worth merging. jolielover♥talk 09:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielover I find did one thing. Apparently it is from Kendrick Lamar instead: [7]. It would be worth searching though. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KYM, Know Your Meme is an unreliable source. Other than that, I find very few mentions of the phrase. I still don't think the term has any relevance. jolielover♥talk 11:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolielover Oh. I didn't realise that. It is actually not a banned source per WP:RSPISNOT Servite et contribuere (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perennial Sources is just a guide to previous discussions; the reason Know Your Meme is unacceptable as a reliable source is because it is user generated. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suriname0 Not trying to push for its use, but it doesn't say that is Prohibited, it does say that it is not a Policy or Guideline. I will be honest, I didn't even know what Know Your Meme was until just recently. Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:USERGENERATED: "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sources are ... Know Your Meme", do note that the list there is non-exhaustive and provides samples for illustrative purposes. WP:USERGENERATED is a section of WP:Reliable sources, which is a community guideline. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four Thanks for letting me know. Thank you. Servite et contribuere (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jolielover, I would absolutely agree that the only option is just delete. Galaxybeing (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't mention that the term is used by members of Generation Z. ObserveOwl (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sold in doing a merge, KYM would classify as a tertiary source based on WP:TERTIARY, but we should use sources other than KYM due to WP:KYM which other editors pointed out already. But even then, KYM commonly cites primary sources, which is not erroneous in itself, but Wikipedia can't straight-up use primary sources as per WP:PRIMARY. Kyleroo (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant notability for this meme, also fails WP:GNG. Galaxybeing (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOTDICT and insufficient notability. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of notability. Opm581^{(talk | he/him)} 02:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch exonyms

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

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dutch dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - What's the harm in having it?

Ike Lek (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the harm in having a list of Dutch words for spices or bird species or truck engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I keep thinking back to this, and honestly, I don't know. Maybe those could exist? Not as stand alone lists, but Dutch names for birds could be an article that includes a list. Ike Lek (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Ike Lek (talk) 02:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

' Delete Not really notable on English Wikipedia. Metallurgist (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other noms: Keep - obviously WP:DICDEF is not a relevant policy as these are not dictionary definitions. There are plenty of references on nl.wiki, which would appear to be more than enough to satisfy WP:NLIST, happy to have a more forensic discussion of those if that's really necessary. RS on en.wiki do not have to be in English JMWt (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well-referenced trivia are still trivia. —Tamfang (talk) 03:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Which specific part of WP:NOTEVERYTHING are you claiming this page violates? JMWt (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOTDIRECTORY —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I see support--but no consensus--for the view that the current content is unfit for mainspace, and that the article should be rewritten. The key question of whether the topic is notable has not been decisively answered here. We should remember that the ever-popular WP:TNT is an essay about rewriting an article on a notable topic. There is no support in policy for use of the Delete button as an editorial tool to fix poorly written prose. Editors are encouraged to remove unsourced or non-encyclopedic content, whittling the article down to a stub if necessary, or to discuss potential redirect or merge targets on the Talk page. Owen× ☎ 18:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLM aided design

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. If this is notable, it needs WP:TNT ~~because it cannot be divorced from its creation by AI.~~ Wholly inappropriately sourced with unreliable sources, fails WP:V, which is a key tenet of Wikipedia. Previoulsy sent to draft with the rationale While not conclusively AI-generated, the writing style, structure, and tone are consistent with LLM-assisted authorship. It likely had human curation or editing layered on top of content produced or scaffolded by a large language model. Further, the references are almost all deprecated sources. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent author @Manvi jha13 came onto IRC Live Chat asking for assistance with this. They've repeated the article was not created with AI: they state they are pursuing a PHD in this topic so wrote the draft as an academic essay instead of an Wikipedia article. Have given guidance, and assuming good faith. qcne (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@QcneThank you so much for your message.

@Timtrent, thank you very much for taking the time to review my draft and for providing your feedback — I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

It is rather intriguing to see the draft being marked as AI-generated again. I have stated in my talk page for the article and would like the opportunity to clarify again that no content of the given page has been generated by AI. The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation. I believe that given the academic use and exploration of the topic, along with the fact that I am a PhD student mostly engaged in academic writing, gives the article a similar tone, which I have tried to improve since your suggestions. Please do let me know if there are any additional areas/sections/perspectives you would suggest for me to improve on.

Additionally, I have noticied that you have reservations regarding the citations? I believe all the citations are academic publications. Please let me know if and how I can improve them.

Thank you,

Manvi Manvi jha13 (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, in reference to your claim on Talk:LLM aided design that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement", could you please disclose in full detail the extent to which you used an LLM to generate the article, including the content, section headings, references, and formatting? Additionally, could you please disclose the name and versions of the AI tool(s) that you have been using to edit Wikipedia, as well as whether you are using those tools to author your comments in discussions like this one? — Newslinger talk 20:29, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

When I state that "the use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement," I am referring specifically to minor assistance such as suggesting synonyms or checking for spelling and grammatical errors (ChatGPT-4o). Importantly, no AI tools were used to draft or generate any content or contextual material.

Additionally, I want to clarify that AI was never used in drafting or contributing to any discussions or comments. I reaffirm that at no point was AI employed to generate new text or ideas, thereby eliminating any concern regarding hallucinations or the reliability of the content. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, you made the edit Special:Diff/1296403283 to the article within the last hour. How did you generate the references and the citation code that you added into the article? — Newslinger talk 20:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean generate references? They are the papers I have read, most of them are initailly made available on Arxiv and later published via conferences or journals. Why would it be difficult to find them?

As for citiation code, it is a rather starightforward format one can write it themselves, in any case to simplyfy my work, I wrote a small python script that takes bibtex format citaion and converts to wikipedia style. This helps reduce manual effort, and ensures consistency. I’ve made sure all included sources are verifiable and meet the reliability standards expected here. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger, My apologies, I missed to ping you in my response, please refer to my reply above. Thank you in advance. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the citation code were generated with a Python script, it's not clear why the code would use plaintext instead of normalized citation templates such as {{Cite journal}}, or why it would mix wikitext formatting with Markdown formatting (which is not used by Wikipedia).

This article exhibits too many characteristics of LLM-generated content to remain in article space. I am unconvinced that "The use of AI was limited strictly to very occasional language refinement" when the the very first revision (Special:Permalink/1294545580) already shows heavy signs of being LLM-generated, including the excessive use of lists and the idiosyncratic use of title case that are associated with AI chatbots. Draftify, and the draft should not be moved back into article space without going through the Articles for creation (AfC) process. — Newslinger talk 21:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback. I don't understand why a python script would be limited to citation template, it would be able to take input and produce results based on how I program it. So I respectfully but completely disagree with this claim of yours.

Additionally, as I already stated, the use of ChatGPT was restricted to the use for checking grammar and spelling errors. To highlight the procedure goes like- I write a draft -> I pass it to ChatGPT with a prompt asking to fix any spelling or grammatical errors in the given text and just use that. This procedure in no way known to me generates new text. Additionally, in order to clarify again, this is the topic I am working on for PhD, the academic tone and style (including the usage of lists and detailed descriptions) is thus a result of the same Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the version of your draft before you processed it with ChatGPT? — Newslinger talk 21:53, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your question.

I would not have the article as a whole but yes I can get all the paragraphs I processed through the ChatGPT history. Would you like samples or screenshots (or other methods you deem satisfactory for proving, since that is what we are doing here)?

Honestly it is a bit intriguing to see how intolerant the Wikipedia community is of the academic community and their writing style. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you could provide the pre-ChatGPT content in text form on the article talk page, Talk:LLM aided design, that would help establish that the article is not LLM-generated and also help editors improve the article by having your original writing available to reference.

The Wikipedia community appreciates the academic community in general, but many Wikipedians have a negative view of LLM-generated content. On Wikipedia, articles are expected to conform to the Manual of Style, and LLM-generated articles almost always deviate from the style guidelines in much more distinct ways than the average new editor would.

To clarify my previous comment, I did not say that a Python script would be limited to generating citation templates, although I do find it unusual that your script converts citations to "wikipedia style" by partially outputting Markdown instead of using a normalized citation template format. — Newslinger talk 22:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger

Thank you for your feedback.

Sure I can add pre-ChatGPT text for reference, just to clarify, do you expect the entire article or a few paragraphs would be enough?

Additionally for the python script, I do not use any libraries, my script simply takes the BibTex(easier to extract from), extracts details like paper name, author name etc.. and simply arranged them in a template I give. The template is the one I found to be the best fit for my scenario, it can be heavily varying from the general trend but I don't think that should be an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 22:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, that would be preferred as it would be most helpful to all interested editors. For your citation script, I highly recommend revising your script template to use Wikipedia's Citation Style 1 templates to ensure that it consistently meets Wikipedia's citation style guidelines. — Newslinger talk 22:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Newslinger

I have added a sample in the talk section of the article. Please refer to it for context. I decided not to include the entire article, as I did not want to create a lengthy and potentially cluttered post there. However, if you still have any reservations about the use of AI in the article based on the example provided, please let me know.

Additionally, I found the article WP:CHATGPT, which clearly states that using AI to refine text is acceptable, as long as the content does not involve hallucinations, inaccuracies, or unverifiable claims. Given that the text in this article has been thoroughly reviewed and all sources are properly cited, I would like to ask if you have identified any instances where this might have been an issue? Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manvi jha13, don't worry about your disclosures resulting in a "lengthy and potentially cluttered post", as the content you post on Talk:LLM aided design will certainly be within Wikipedia's page size limit. You can organize your content by wrapping any section(s) of it between the {{Collapse top}} and {{Collapse bottom}} templates to prevent any clutter. It shouldn't take long to post the entire pre-ChatGPT article, as you have already indicated that you have access to your ChatGPT logs. I'm requesting the disclosure of the entire pre-ChatGPT article because the information provided so far, frankly, does not convince me that the article is not LLM-generated. There are multiple paragraphs within the article body that lack inline citations, which is a serious concern with respect to WP:CHATGPT § Risks and relevant policies. — Newslinger talk 21:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Qcne. I think that must be interpreted as Manvi jha13's opinion that it should be kept. This does not address the lack of WP:V in the nomination. I will accept their assurance about AI generation in good faith and strike that part of the nomination. It has now been drafified twice, which is one more time than DRAFTOBJECT allows. I do not feel it may be returned to draft space without a full consensus under these circumstaces, crcumstances whcih we would not be in without unilateral moves to mainspace (allowed, but unwise in this case). It may, however, be spared that via WP:HEY. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 10:18, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator I have no objection to consensus based draftification, though I would prefer an assurance that, if sent back to draft, the creating editor will submit for review and work with the outcome of that review and any further iteration. That might be a closure condition, in an ideal world. [[If WP:HEY has happened pre closure then it shoul dbe retained. If I am notified I will consider withdrawal. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:08, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Engineering, and Computing. Skynxnex (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent

Thank you very much for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions. I have revised the article accordingly. The updated version no longer includes arXiv or other non–peer-reviewed sources. I hope these changes help improve the article's quality and bring it closer to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and reliability. Manvi jha13 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft: is the best option. Unfortunately, it's nearly entirely sourced to arXiv articles, which are not reliable sources. Pre-prints, meaning they've not been peer-reviewed yet. Once they get published, they would have to then show reliable sourcing. This article is also perhaps a bit too technical for a general audience. Needs a rewrite and better sourcing at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
or let it incubate offline and submit it for the AfC review. This wouldn't pass as is anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article should be improved, then in the longer term merged with AI-driven design automation. This is another new page, with a more general overview (not all AIs are LLMs). Both pages have issues, but the topic is surely worth keeping. LouScheffer (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @LouScheffer,

Thank you so much for your valuable review. I would greatly appreciate your guidance or suggestions on how the article could be improved.

While AI-driven design automation does involve hardware design, it is fundamentally different from LLM-aided design. AI-driven automation typically refers to techniques like MLIR or the use of Bayesian optimization and supervised/unsupervised/reinforcement learning to improve stages of the design process. However, its scope is generally limited to optimization rather than generation.

In contrast, LLM-aided design focuses on the ability to generate descriptions, code, and even complete designs from natural language input; something beyond the capabilities of traditional AI-driven automation. This distinction, I believe, is key to understanding the scope and novelty of LLM-aided approaches. Manvi jha13 (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TNT Are sure this entire article is not LLM generated? It has a weird, unencyclopedic promotional tone. InvisibleUser909 (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (with no shade intended to User:Manvi jha13): I am interested in the assertion, "The AI tools have been used for vocabulary suggestion, but in no case for text generation." Vocabulary is part of text, and suggesting it entails generation, does it not? I am interested because part of my day job is to teach writing courses, and I often hear from students things like, "I didn't use AI. I only used <LLM-based app> to <do writing-related thing>." Again, with no shade to Manvi jha13, it seems to me that the definitions of terms such as AI, LLM, and generate are currently unsettled. This is something that might eventually be mentioned in this or a similar article (though, of course, only after it has been discussed in reliable secondary sources). Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Cnilep

Thank you so much for your feedback and interest in the topic. I'd like to offer some insights based on my understanding and research into LLMs so far.

To the best of my understanding, it would be considered "text generation" in the context of Wikipedia if the entire article or part of it were artificially created, which could potentially lead to false information or hallucinations (a known risk even with the latest LLMs). However, when the use of an LLM is solely for refinement purposes- such as improving grammar, suggesting synonyms, or rephrasing sentences- it's comparable to using a thesaurus tool or the inbuilt features in MS Word/Grammarly that flag grammatical issues and suggest more suitable word choices. In my view, this does not lead to the generation of entirely new or potentially inaccurate information.

Many people are opting for AI tools over MS Word or Grammarly because they can save a lot of time in the writing process. However, after reflecting on the depth of the discussion on this page, I'm starting to wonder if that time saved is worth it! Manvi jha13 (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stick to the old-fashioned stuff, Manvi jha13. It doesn't take a lot more time and using it develops writing and vocabulary skills. Old-fashioned tools like thesauruses, Grammarly and your brain are much more reliable.

Wikipedia editors are becoming increasingly wary of any LLM material being used on Wikipedia since it's still unreliable. Of particular concern for us, LLMs tasked with generating an article will produce an impeccably formatted list of footnoted references which turn out to be either inapplicable or just plain made up; that's the kiss of death for Wikipedia's reliability. So if someone senses you're using LLMs, it develops trust issues. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked all the article's references and verified that almost all existed (one or two links didn't work for me). All were at least somewhat relevant (I am not an AI expert so "somewhat" was as close as I could figure). All but the several non-peer reviewed refs already discussed above came from very reputable sources such as the IEEE and the ACM. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments above. I'm no AI expert so I can't say for sure but I suspect we've got a really good article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 21:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historyexpert2 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or delete. The article requires major revision, bordering on a total rewrite, to be an encyclopedia article. There are footnotes, yes, but as far as I can tell they are serving in lieu, or redundantly in addition to wikilinks (MOS:INTERNAL). Every single footnote I've been able to review is in the form of <thing>[ref to paper that introduced the thing]. This would be easily corrected by replacing them with wikilinks, but it means that the article does not have any references as we use them on Wikipedia, as a foundation on which the article is Wikipedia:Based upon. The fact that the papers cited are the original papers that introduced the things referred to means that they are for the most part going to be WP:PRIMARY literature, and non-independent. All of the analytic or evaluative content of the article are original research, or at least as they would be as far as we would be able to tell (if there are sources they are based from, the author has not cited many of them). This should not be resubmitted without the issues identified being addressed. Alternatively, this can be submitted to a different project that does accept original theories and conclusions. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on discussion and review of the references, WP:V is not delete-level concern – yes, I agree more sources should be added. LLM-aided design is also a notable topic has has relevance to many fields, including biology where I have some experience. Kashyp et al (2025), Peng et al (2024). The editor is quite open to feedback and specific feedback can be given for further improvement if necessary. Overall, it's an useful contribution for an encyclopedia. WeWake (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Prodded articles