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. Owen× ☎ 12:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of misleadingly-named foods

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:OR listcruft, same reasoning applies as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of misleadingly-named foods which led to deletion. Fram (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Language, and Lists. Fram (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete as recreation of deleted clickbait junk list. Mangoe (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: maybe pitch this to buzzfeed, not suitable for wikipedia. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:58, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH. It's not even wrong. Bearian (talk)|
Delete WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. jolielover♥talk 10:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above Muhandes (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the above indicating WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Surayeproject3 (talk) 12:28, 31 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 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian toponyms in Slovakia

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

I found a scholarly source https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/mgrsd-2019-0005 but I don’t think that is enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Hungary, and Slovakia. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources show that Hungarian names of places in the region have historical significance 1 and 2 and 3 JMWt (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Relevant previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German exonyms for places in Slovakia (consensus was keep) and a relevant merge discussion: Talk:List of cities and towns in Slovakia#Merger Proposal (which was no consensus). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I'd support a merge discussion to revisit the merge idea. However I do not support a merge ATD at AfD on the grounds that any discussion should take account of the German exonyms page. In terms of normalising data, there is a good argument for consolidating information somehow, but if we do it page by page, the result is likely to be a trainwreck. In any case, there will be no reason to delete this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, marking it for deletion strongly reflects ignorance of the topic. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:04, 27 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. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

God of the Sullied

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

Non notable book, promotional article. Sources are press releases, paid for spam articles. See also:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary of a Whimsical Lover
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Live the Sullied.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indian Story of an Author.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone Are the Days (novel). Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Language, Literature, India, Delhi, and Canada. Zuck28 (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 are not WP:SIGCOV of the book itself, but some other topic (the author's publishing house, the author's other books, etc.). Sources 4, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (same source as 4) are overly positive and promotional reviews with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. Source 2 is a broken link that I can't access through the Internet Archive. I can't find any proof of Source 11's existence. That leaves Source 8, which requires payment to view and wouldn't satisfy WP:NBOOK by itself anyway. Astaire (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to me to be a "paid for " bit of WP:PROMO other than the lead calling the book a "bestselling" book, but a paid editor sure could have and would have done more there. Regardless, the subject fails WP:NBOOK and WP:SIGCOV and should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis by Astaire and the concerns of promotional writing. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:51, 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. Owen× ☎ 21:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Are the Days (novel)

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

Non notable book. Fails GNG and NBOOK. Sources are poor to unreliable, primary PR links by Wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

The Indian Story of an Author

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

Non notable book, fails Wp:GNG, wp:NBOOK and wp:SIGCOV. Possible COI & UPE. UNI is paid for press release, New Indian Express is an interview, and rest two are promotional articles by wp:NEWSORGINDIA.

Diary of a Whimsical Lover

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

Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief. Zuck28 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Language, Literature, India, Delhi, and Canada. Zuck28 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK with WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues.

The first reference is a broken link, and I can't find it on the Internet Archive.
The second and fourth references have the same issues that I raised over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Countless Grief - lack of a reviewer byline and overly promotional content, respectively.
The third reference is a brief three-sentence plot summary without expressing any opinion on the book. Doesn't qualify for criterion #1 of WP:BKCRIT.

Astaire (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- lacks SIGCOV on my searches so far. Most of the hits are either from Book selling websites or Brief book reviews from Blogs.Lorraine Crane (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Been seeing a lot of recent AfD nominations where this is the case, but another fail on WP:NEWSORGINDIA grounds. The article needs other sources to pass WP:NBOOK then. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Having seen this AfD [1], I have no doubt the same concerns are present and that this article is better off deleted. Surayeproject3 (talk) 13:54, 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. Owen× ☎ 21:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Countless Grief

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

Non notable book. Fails Wp:NBOOK, Wp:GNG and Wp:SIGCOV. No sources except two poorly written press releases/non-bylined promotional pieces and an unreliable dead link. Possibly a case of COI/UPE. User: Bond111 and their alternative account user:Dial911 were heavily involved in the creation and editing of the articles related to the author Gaurav Sharma (author) and his non-notable books. Zuck28 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Fictional elements, Language, Literature, India, Delhi, and Canada. Zuck28 (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything online apart from the sources mentioned above. Looking through databases I have access to shows no results whatsoever. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK with serious WP:NEWSORGINDIA issues. I can't find evidence that the first source even exists. The second source [2] byline is "News Desk Team". It is highly unorthodox for a book review not to mention the reviewer's name, and it also goes against their own editorial standards [3]: Articles must mention all individuals who worked on the piece, including authors, contributors, and editors. The third source [4] is overly promotional (there are headers for "Sponsored Guest Post" and "Brand Partnership") and does not look like a reputable news source (the website no longer even exists). Astaire (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional and fails WP:NBOOK. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Astaire raising the serious WP:NEWSORGINDIA problems, the article would need new sources to properly pass WP:NBOOK. Iljhgtn (talk) 07:45, 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 redirect‎ to Floodgates principle. I see a consensus against retaining this article for the time being. If anyone wants to merge or work on content in draftspace on their own accord, they are free to do so with proper attribution. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floodgate effect

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

Possibly specific to Singaporean English as creator might be from Singapore? As a Brit I have never heard this phrase although Brits might say “open the floodgate”. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Singapore. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By itself, not knowing of a phrase is not a reason for deletion. I'd think the real problem here is that this has been tagged as completely unsourced since December 2009. I don't have any opinion beyond that, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although the words appear in some book results, there is seemingly no coverage of this as a distinct term, it's not on Wiktionary, and almost every other result I found was about yugioh or some video game. Unsourced since creation in 2005. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some uses on GS suggest possible notability, but what we have here is an unsourced stub that merits WP:TNT (a rewrite could be done now, ping me if this is rescued and I'll revise my vote if necessary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floodgates principle or merge into an idiom list (but even that I cant find much sourcing). I want to say keep, but searching a very refined way yields very little. The few things Ive found all refer to essentially that legal principle. Nothing really links to this article, but I am a little hesitant to go for delete. Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I would say the term has a place in the Wiki as per nom, maybe draftify meantime as ATD, the term seems to be a known across different disciplines such as in Law and in economics, but citations to support the term itself seems lacks SIGCOV, closest I would say is the Butterfly effect in terms of similar implications, however not identical, I also came across an existing Wiki article in Psychology but its not same in "implications" Flooding (psychology). Even an AI search like this shows mixed results to the point of hallucination? Perhaps a disambiguation page for Floodgate? or have an Wiktionary entry be made for this?Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floodgates principle: per Metallurgist. No standalone notability, and the concept is largely covered at the target. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian toponyms in Zakarpattia Oblast

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

I doubt this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Hungary. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to Hungarian toponyms in Ukraine? Or List of Ukrainian place names of Hungarian origin?Metallurgist (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, present-day Zakarpattia Oblast belonged to Hungary from the late 9th century until 1920, thus Hungarian name variants are often the original forms which also appear in sources (in addition to Latin). --Norden1990 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ if no sources that discuss the topic are found. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus. If you are suggsting a merge or reditect, please provide an activr link to the target article so we know it exitsts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a Hungarian community in that part of Ukraine so it would be quite weird if there were no Hungarian toponyms. There are academic papers discussing this which meet WP:NLIST including 1 (pdf) and 2 and I don't speak Hungarian or Ukrainian but I think there's good evidence that this subject is notable and that other sources exist. JMWt (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per above. I cannot access the first source, but I believe this shows a likelihood of meeting WP:NLIST.
Ike Lek (talk) 07:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per above sources. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep as the above make a good point Metallurgist (talk) 17:15, 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 delete‎. Closing despite the immediately preceding relist, because we have unanimous consensus. Sandstein 20:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greek exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

Cleanup and sourcing was discussed in the 2007 deletion discussion - I think anyone who wants to cleanup or source this has had enough time by now Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Greece. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms mass AfD as well. Warudo (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 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 such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. I'd also preserve places in Turkey from which Greeks were expelled. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I think your approach is a bit too narrow, I agree with the broad strokes. That being said, if this is deleted, I have no reason to believe that the bits you are saying to keep will be saved. Unfortunately List of Greek exonyms in Turkey has been deleted, granted based on the AfD it may have had quality issues. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has already been brought to AFD before so is not eligible for a Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and incorporate content into Wiktionary. Hogshine (talk) 20:55, 22 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!} 20:07, 29 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.

Names of Belarusian places in other languages

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Belarus. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Are there any good ATDs for this? You are right that it isn't very encyclopedic, but it is a great index that I would love to be kept in some form. Is there another Wikimedia project that it would fit better on? I would like it to continue to exist, even though this isn't the right place for it. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you use this table and how know the quality is "great" when there are no sources? Is that because you checked a sample by flipping round language links? Perhaps a Belarussian reading this would like to translate it to Belarussian Wikipedia? However I don’t know their rules. Another alternative if you need it in bulk might be to make a Wikidata query. Or could AI nowadays flip round the language links on your request? Or are you saying it is useful to you because some articles don't exist in other languages? In which case without sources how can you trust the info? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to realize that the Yiddish translations are maybe a bit rougher than I thought. I was going to manually update Wikidata items, but I've decided against it due to the lack of citations. Sorry to bother you. Ike Lek (talk) 06:46, 16 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) 18:55, 22 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) 18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian exonyms in Istria

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

TadejM says it is notable but with only one cite on the Italian article I am not sure Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Croatia, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Istria has a sizable Italian population. These names are used in the areas with the Italian minority and are commonly mentioned in their media. The Italian Wikipedia provides several citations for them. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Italian Wikipedia has more than one citation. I think you may have missed them as they as separate from the "Bibliografia" section. Because of both the history of Italians in Istria, and the current modern significance of the names, Italian exonyms for places in Istria is a notable topic, and a list is not inappropriate. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT. There are some exonym articles that are encyclopedic, such as Chinese exonyms, but that article contains well-sourced contextual information ~~and mostly restricts the list to exonyms that have received secondary coverage.~~ The Italian version of this article appears to rely mainly on primary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sourcing for the list in Chinese exonyms is pretty bad; the list seems to be arbitrarily selected. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited. (emphasis mine) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even with secondary sources, there's still a WP:NOTDICT argument against having exhaustive lists of exonyms. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting this; a list of toponyms seems less crazy than I originally thought, assuming that sources exist, even though it would be quite large. It could be eventually merged into one or more general lists such as List of locations in Istria County. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coming back to this, I find myself reconsidering whether these names are truly exonyms at all, as many have official status and are used locally by ethnic Italians. If the page isn't even about true exonyms, this changes things significantly. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are actually endonyms.[5] --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the same is true for the region of Dalmatia and a similar article (List of Italian exonyms in Dalmatia) was recently deleted by PROD. IF the outcome of this AfD is anything other than delete, then the same should apply to that list. Giuliotf (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 74 and 75 of this may be of note here [6]. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting given concerns raised by Ike Lek
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The place was Italian until 1947, so it would make sense to have a list. But this is basically unsourced and appears to list every place in the location, from A-Z. So a whole bunch of places had Italian names, in a place that was Italian until around 75 years ago... I don't see the need for this, seems redundant. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms

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

When I language link through to the first entry Albánský Bělehrad it seems to be historical rather than a current exonym. I cannot find the article info in the cite. Also I don’t think this is notable. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Czech Republic. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The page description does a decent job differentiating between exonyms and transliterations; however it does not always seem to uphold this differentiation in the list contents. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as there are other lists of European exonyms, I don't see any reason why this specific one should be deleted. Or there should be one discussion about deleting them all. The page needs significant improvement (e.g. deleting the aforementioned Albánský Bělehrad), but poor condition is not a reason for deletion. And the page is not a dictionary. FromCzech (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was one discussion about deleting them all, in March 2024. It failed (no consensus) as too sweeping; some (Chinese exonyms, Arabic exonyms) are less dictionary-like than others. So now Chidgk1 is nominating them singly. —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but a bundle of European exonym lists, maybe starting with just 5-10 of them, could still make sense. I respect what Chidgk1 is doing, even though I am often arguing to keep them. Such is bureaucracy, I suppose. Ike Lek (talk) 20:43, 15 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 such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. I'd also preserve places formerly under the Crown of Bohemia. —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 15 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!} 21:17, 20 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) 23:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese exonyms

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

Although the Portuguese article has lots of citations I am not sure that is enough to show notability on English Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a particularly strong exonym page, although I was disappointed to see it lacked sections for Angola and Mozambique, which would likely serve a more encyclopedic purpose than France or Greece. The Portuguese Wikipedia references seem adequate to me to demonstrate notability. If consensus is keep, ping me and I will try to make some improvements to it in the next couple weeks. - Ike Lek (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a prolific contributor to this article and a native speaker of European Portuguese, I have no reservations about writing the sections on Angola and Mozambique, with a view to enhancing the utility of the article. It is imperative to note that greater care will be exercised in the near future to ensure the inclusion of additional sources. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:36, 13 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 such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with our opinion. Individuals who do not possess proficiency in Portuguese will encounter significant challenges in adapting toponyms to the appropriate Portuguese phonology and orthography. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then should en.wp include glossaries of everything that a learner of Portuguese might need to mention? —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these exonym articles are generally not notable Metallurgist (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence or rationale to back it up. Ike Lek (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a prolific contributor to this article and a specialist in linguistics, as well as a native European Portuguese speaker, I posit that articles of this nature are necessary on account of their educational value, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural navigation, and their potential to facilitate translation and multilingual writing. Moreover, they ensure searchability and disambiguation for those who wish to navigate not only any list of Portuguese exonyms, but also any other language, including even endangered languages. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cantrusthestory Thanks for your expertise. Could you possibly add some citations to this article? Perhaps some of those on the Portuguese article. Nowadays most citations (except pdfs) can be easily added by using the “automatic” option in Visual Editor. If you have any difficulty with adding cites please ask or just add them in the right place in a rudimentary way and some helpful Wikignome will tidy them later. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously WP:DICDEF is not a relevant policy as these are not dictionary definitions. There are plenty of references on pt.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) 18:29, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. With no !vote other than the nom after three weeks, and a page ineligible for soft-deletion, no action can be taken here. Owen× ☎ 17:13, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano dialect

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

I can't find any information about something specifically called the serrano dialect, either in English or in Spanish. "Serrano" in Spanish means "mountain range", so the term "dialecto serrano" is very generic, akin to "city slang". It does not seem to refer a specific dialect from a specific place. In fact, a quick Google search shows that many dialects have been called "dialecto serrano" in different Spanish speaking countries. It does not satisfy the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. JohnMizuki (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but I felt obliged to deprod this. Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial topics, and other than politics and religion, nothing is more controversial that whether a certain dialect exists. I have No opinion on the subject. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't claim the dialect doesn't exist. I stated that nothing SPECIFICALLY called "Serrano dialect" exists. Once again: the expression "dialecto serrano" in Spanish is a generic term, that has been used in different countries to refer to different dialects. It is the same as the expression "city slang". "Serrano" does not refer to a specific geographic location and is used to refer to any mountain range. This is equivalent to creating an article titled "city slang" that says that "city slang" is the dialect of the city of Paris. It makes no sense whatsoever. JohnMizuki (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:46, 16 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) 17:24, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian exonyms

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

Previous deletion discussions were not specifically about this article. Discussion on the talk page shows this article may be misinformation or disinformation. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Croatia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of scholarly discussion on the subject, it just needs to be sourced. [7] [8] [9] [10] and this notes Croatian exonyms are not necessarily consistent, so I don't necessarily think the "disinformation" tag is correct. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added two sources to the page. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Like most such lists, it is a potentially endless collection of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words, including names, to its own phonology and/or orthography. If it were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those unrelated to the endonym, or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would imply every exonym article on the site should be deleted and ignores the fact this is a validly sourced list per WP:NLIST and the sources above, and ignores that there are several exonyms in the article, especially Italian ones but also Romanian and Turkish, which are unrelated to the endonym. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So let the article concentrate on those, and annotate them, rather than burying them in the trivial. (Validly sourced trivia are still trivia.) (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then the article shouldn't be deleted, then. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it might hypothetically someday become worth keeping, right? —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, notability is not based on the current content of the article - and as one of the Croatian sources notes, a foreign place name in Croatian that is the same as the foreign place name in a local language is still an exonym. Furthermore this isn't WP:NOTDICT - an easy way to figure out if that's true is if it should be on Wiktionary, which it shouldn't. This is valid reference information. SportingFlyer T·C 13:38, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What makes it notable? Why shouldn't it be on Wiktionary? —Tamfang (talk) 03:44, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Croatian exonyms have been extensively covered by several academic researchers are what makes it notable, and it's not for Wiktionary because this is not the sort of reference information which would appear in a dictionary (and hence is not a dictionary definition of the term.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several academic researchers have made bare lists? —Tamfang (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First off, plenty of academic researchers make bare lists, but that is beside the point. The question you are asking does not make sense. Wikipedia is not a direct copy of academic works, and lists can be compiled from multiple sources. Most lists on Wikipedia are not direct copies of a bare list, but a combination of information from multiple sources. The article is titled "Croatian exonyms" and SportingFlyer is claiming that several academic researchers have published work about the subject of Croatian exonyms. Issues with the current form of the article can be resolved through revision, but what you are saying now is no longer a coherent argument. Ike Lek (talk) 02:27, 22 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) 14:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Metallurgist (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why, don't you like the sources which clearly cover this topic? SportingFlyer T·C 13:39, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional academic sources include [11] [12] [13] [14] (last one less on a list of exonyms and more of the importance of exonyms). This list clearly passes WP:NLIST and does not fail WP:NOTDICT. SportingFlyer T·C 20:42, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A quick glance at crude translations suggests that they support Exonym. —Tamfang (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, at this stage, a source analysis of recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – New sources provided could allow to the article to be more than an indiscriminate list. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:50, 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 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 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 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.

Prodded articles