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

Germanic parent language

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

I contemplated making a merge proposal for this article instead of a deletion request, but honestly I don't see much of a reason to keep this page as a redirect. A lot of this term's notability (which it already has little of) stems from the fact that this term has a Wikipedia article and not from its actual usage in academics. It would've never crossed anyone's mind to make a redirect page to Proto-Germanic language using this term had this article never been made in the first place. This is not a notable term; its use in academics is negligible and is almost completely confined to works by Frans Van Coetsem or works that directly involved him, and its use outside of academics is almost entirely in relation to this Wikipedia article and not in relation to the actual academics it originates from. Wikipedia should only document notable terms and not be what makes a term notable. This term was not made into a Wikipedia article because it was notable, but rather it is notable because it was made into a Wikipedia article. While talented Wikipedians have contributed to this article, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I recommend a read of the talk page of Germanic parent language to understand why this article should be deleted, as editors there articulate why this page shouldn't exist far better than I'm able to do in this deletion nomination. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and History. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete + redirect weak keep I'm leaning toward keeping for a couple reasons:

If a user were to encounter this term elsewhere and come here for further information, this would be a great resource. It's unclear how likely that is, given the seemingly limited breadth of the scholarship. Comparative page views, if we're allowed to consider them.
~~The page is referenced several times from Proto-Germanic language, which itself draws this distinction as a phase between PIE and PG. Because this area of scholarship isn't cut and dry~~

If retained, I think the main improvements would be to simplify some of the complex sentences to make it more accessible and to shift away from 'according to X' sentence structures, unless it's articulating a specific point of contention among scholars.

~~I think a merge and edit down of the content could be beneficial as well, as this is very detailed for the more widely documented PG.~~ Mad Jim Bey talk 23:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mad Jim Bey: The term being referenced several times in Proto-Germanic language is one of the reasons it should be deleted. Those references are of undue weight and were added in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage and importance of the term. The existence of this article affects other articles by promoting the term to be used in other articles despite its lack of notability in the academics Wikipedia is supposed to be recording. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Treetoes023 I've been convinced. I dug into the listed sources in the reference material and searched through whatever I could access. Almost none of them actually refer to 'German parent language', but consistently to 'Proto-Germanic'. Those sources generally don't even reference the other mentioned source authors. It appears to be a limit ~4 academics who use this term, so I'm pro-delete (and redirect). Mad Jim Bey talk 01:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mad Jim Bey: The same thing happened to me when I first came across the article in May 2024; the article had completely convinced me of the term's notability and I even made some copy edits on the article. I only realized after recent reexamination that the article had tricked me into believing the term had a far bigger part in Germanic linguistics than it actually did and that's what got me to nominate it for deletion. Who knows if it's fooled other people the same way and possibly caused them to perpetuate it? – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I'm not sure how the article has been on Wikipedia so long - there's no basis in the sources for a specific "Germanic Parent Language" that is different from Proto-Germanic. However, the term does occur occasionally in the literature meaning Proto-Germanic, and so I think a redirect is a better solution than outright deletion.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been arguing the pointlessness of this article for a long time. In principle, Ermenrich is right that, since the term does occur, a redirect might be more appropriate than deletion. But in practice anyone who comes across this term in the very limited selection of the specialist literature where it's used will recognize it simply as anything an occasional alternative to Proto-Germanic. There is already a redirect from Parent language to Proto-language, which seems to me to cover that issue entirely adequately anyway.--Pfold (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Proto-Germanic per NOTDICT and CFORK. This topic is covered by the Proto-Germanic article, including the Pre-Proto-Germanic section. Kanguole 08:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomOphyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 10:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, IRC, the author wanted an article for the stage between P-IE and Grimm's law. There was obviously a Bronze Age Pre-Proto-Germanic language phase that followed P-IE and preceded the Proto-Germanic of the Iron Age.--Berig (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silent commerce

AfDs for this article:

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

I suspect someone coined this term but it never caught on Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Business. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While this has been tagged as unsourced since 2009 (and a potential GNG failure since 2017), it appears the two sources brought up in the first nomination from 2019 (which ended as "no consensus") have remained unacknowledged both in the earlier nomination (the only other non-nomination comment then pretty much said it was too short to even be a stub, but that is not a reason to delete if expansion is possible) and in the article. I don't have any opinion on those sources or anything else here, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sourced and when I checked, there were not any sources about this, they were different things. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 23:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabets of the South Caucasus

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

This article appears to me to be WP:SYNTH, creating a novel topic by bringing together sources that are reliable in the statements they support to establish a broader narrative that they do not support. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Armenia, and Georgia (country). Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research by User3810486. While we don't do that sort of thing, I would encourage that user to save their work and submit it to an appropriate journal. Bearian (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, article is a combination of information about different scripts joined together by an original research concept. SDGB1217 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Tiwari

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

A promotional article for a non-notable author and businessman. Sources are mostly primary, poor and unreliable. Fails Wp:SIGCOV, Wp:RS, Wp:NAUTHOR and Wp:NBUSINESSPERSON.

Article creator is a Wp:SPA with possible COI indicated by their username. Zuck28 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Language, Journalism, Literature, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Zuck28 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in agreement with the nom. Upon reviewing the article, it appears to have been either created or extensively edited by a COI editor. Low-quality sources and lacks any significant coverage that would meet GNG.Chanel Dsouza (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Taabii (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuweschans dialect

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

Hoax article per User:Erik Wannee's statement and see its article's talk page in the section "HOAX". JeBonSer (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. JeBonSer (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called sources are useless.

Source #1 gives a page in the internet archive that suggests that it has been written (and copyrighted) in 1999 and written in 2008 (Huh?), but in fact it has been uploaded at 19 July of this year. No author of this article is mentioned, only '©2001-2008 Noajwschansk Sproak'.
Source #2 is a 'Photo of an Newpaper'... What new(s)paper is it then? And why is it unreadable? I cannot determine at all what the (sort of) text is about. And it has been uploaded one week ago.
Source #3 has no relevant information at all. In the Dutch version of this article, it links to a list of words in this dialect, without any author. And it has been uploaded last week, too.
Source #4 is identical to source #1.

The article writes that 'The dialect is spoken informally in a small community of around 18 people', quoting source #4. It is not written what that estimation is based on, and who has done research to that.

The dialect is suggested to be 'developed' in 1999. So should it be seen as an artificial dialect? I think it is probably at most a hobby project without any encyclopedic relevance. Erik Wannee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best, it was invented in one day; at worst, it's a hoax. Bearian (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not covered in WP:RS Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A somewhat invested hoax is still a hoax. gidonb (talk) 14:24, 28 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 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.

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.[1] --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 [2]. 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]

Prodded articles