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

List of humorous names in mathematics

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

Essentially WP:OR, personal taste (or lack of it) whether something is "humorous" ("killing field", hilarious; "mother functor", if you pronounce it completely wrong it almost sounds like, well, you guessed it) and not a defining characteristic for most of these. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Mathematics, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of unusual names in mathematics or Draftify as a new Category:Unusual names in mathematics. Describing the terms as humorous is subjective, but there is agreement among WP:RS that these terms are unusual. TurboSuperA+_(connect) 15:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously subjectivity in humour, but firstly there are numerous compilations of these online, even in fairly reputable places refs 1,2,3,4; secondly many of them are deliberate jokes e.g. look at the name origin section on Cox–Zucker machine and lastly there are similar pages e.g. in mathematics Mathematical joke or elsewhere Lists of pejorative terms for people where inclusion or exclusion of examples can't be completely objective.

Feel free to change the list, but you know, have some fun too. WikiNukalito (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lonsdale (entrepreneur)

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

Only 1 article links to this. Seems rather promotional. Marked for COI concerns noting edits from this editor. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, China, Hong Kong, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per NOM. Appears promotional, with little to justify an article. Even with the terribly low bar for WP:GNG, this article appears to fail. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of phrases using ethnic or place names as derisive adjectives

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

Only uses a source from one publication, and therefore appears to fail WP:LISTN. The list is naturally leaning towards whatever that single publication and 2 authors believe is derisive and does not encompass a global viewpoint. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - because IDONTLIKEIT and you shouldn’t either. Let’s call this what it is - a list of offensive ethnic slurs. Serves no encyclopedic purpose. This is an attack page that violates our no attack pages policy. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I don't think it's anything close to an "attack page". It lists everything without using POV language, and most of them aren't even "slurs" (like Mexican standoff, a widely-used term). My issue is both a lack of notability as well as a clear disconnect between title and actual content, because "not liking it" is not a reason to delete things and I don't want people to get the idea that is what motivates the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't believe this has lasted so long, clearly not a notable topic with indiscriminate combination of unrelated place and ethnic terms. I've never heard of nearly any of these, only used in the 60s apparently. Reywas92^Talk 04:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT and poor sourcing. It's possible that a good article could be written, or a good list created, of euphemisms or even insults using names of places and nationalities. There are many with solid history and usage, such as Welsh rabbit. But this list is not the good article. To be a good article, we need to summarise multiple sources. The current list-article is merely a regurgitation of what amounts to a single source (albeit published in two episodes). It's of no encyclopedic value to the reader because it's an indiscriminate hodge-podge of things no one has said in a century alongside things that are used every day, without any distinction. To be clear: racist slurs from history are of huge significance and should be recorded, but to be useful to our reader, we need to make clear who used them, when, why, and describe their historical context and development. The article doesn't even define the scope of "derisive" clearly enough to avoid becoming merely a list of things where a nationality or place name is used in a way that isn't descriptive of nationality or place. For example, when people refer to a French kiss, are they really deriding France? Were they ever? This article is a mess, and best deleted. If anyone wishes to revisit the subject, there is nothing here that will help them. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Yaqub

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

Subject does not appear to passWP:NPROF. The sources in the Arabic Wikipedia article aren’t any help. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and Lebanon. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NPROF Criterion 6c "Lesser administrative posts (provost, dean, department chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Generally, appointment as an acting president/chancellor/vice-chancellor also is not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." is specific. I see no evidence of any other criteria being passed. Fails NPROF and WP:BIO 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 06:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a pass of Wikipedia:NPROF or of Wikipedia:NAUTHOR at all. Qflib (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete this seems to be hard to evaluate due to lack of sources in English, but it seems that he has entry in this encyclopedia on Arabian linguists which indicates notability. I am not convinced that we can use google scholar to easily assess Arabic linguists as easily as scholars at a Western University. What makes me skeptical is that I could find almost no information about the Suleiman International University where he supposedly works (apparently its an online university). --hroest 16:12, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for notability is a bit higher than just having been listed in an encyclopedia, unless I'm missing something here, in which case please advise. Qflib (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on the encyclopedia, if its a scholarly work I would argue that this indicates notability per WP:NPROF. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added Arabic sources to the article. The subject has clear notability in the Arabic academic community and is the author of significant linguistic dictionaries. -- Mohammed Qays (🗣) 18:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there multiple reviews of at least two of those? If so, subject might be notable under Wikipedia:NAUTHOR, but otherwise, just being an author isn't sufficient to establish notability here. Qflib (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mohammed Qays for non-arabic speakers, can you please elaborate a bit on the sources you added? Are they WP:RS, how are the dictionaries significant (what is their reception in the field? how is this documented with citations / reviews?). It is just really hard to make a judgement in a field and a language that I am not familiar with. --hroest 11:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate

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

This is a bit of a difficult one. This page covers perhaps four separate topics - the Paleo-Laplandic Saami substrate (which to a lesser extent also occurs in Finnic), the substrate in the Finno-Permic languages (which here is misleadingly described as the Finno-Volgaic substrate even though it also occurs in Permic), the issue of toponyms in Finland, and the substrate in the Nganasan language. Combining these substrates into a single topic of "Pre-Finno-Ugric substrate" is not notable, but the topics individually may have some notability. The Paleo-Laplandic languages topic already has its own article, and the information about the Finno-Permic substrate should probably go to the article about Finno-Permic languages. Toponyms in Finland could maybe get its own article, and the discussion about the Nganasan language can just go to the language's article. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Finland. Stockhausenfan (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: the term is definitely used at least in Russian-language publications (i.e. Eugene Helimski used it as an umbrella term for 5 separate but related topics) and it's no less legitimate than, say, "Pre-Indo-European languages" or "Pre-Greek substrate". By the way, what I've read on the substrate in Finno-Volgaic languages (Zhivlov & Aikio) make only very few mentions of similar substrate word in Permic. Finstergeist (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this paper Aikio gives several examples that have Permic cognates, see pages 45-46, and he specifically mentions this:

"a surprisingly large part of the vocabulary traditionally reconstructed for

‘Finno-Volgaic’ and ‘Finno-Permic’ (UEW: 605–827) involves irregular sound cor-

respondences and other etymological difficulties."

I.e. Finno-Permic is specifically mentioned (also Finno-Volgaic, but that is a subset of Finno-Permic, and the vocabulary there has the same features such as abundance of š).

Stockhausenfan (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's well-sourced in the literature. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Kingdom county name etymologies

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

disperse into etymology sections of the corresponding entities and then delete. The page is woefully underrefenced, most probably because it lacks eyeballs: when there is an etymology section in the individual page, it is a way higher chance it will be verified. The very fact that it does not have "refimprove" tag shows that nobody cares/sees it. --Altenmann >talk 04:02, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. Little added value in bringing these together on one page. Wire723 (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. I disagree with Wire723 in that I think this info could be valuable with a little (sourced to RSes) analysis of common languages and concepts that appear in the etymologies. As is, though, it's not a great list -- but the info is interesting enough to try to preserve. Even better if each item could be sourced in its new location. -- Avocado (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse per nom. This is not useful as a stand alone article. It makes more sense to distribute these into the respective articles. Ramos1990 (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do you all want to do with the page after the content is dispersed? Deletion would cause attribution problems if the material is being used elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For attribution concerns, redirect to Toponymy in the United Kingdom and Ireland (which, by the way, deserves expansion, e.g., with a phrase or two from the discussed page.) AFAIK page history is sufficient for attribution --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I suggested "disperse", I did not pay attention that the article is woefully underreferenced. So now I am beginning to doubt whether "dispersing" the unreferenced information is that brilliant idea. --Altenmann >talk 06:37, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately this article is a product of its time. The problem is summed up in the list's own introduction: "... it is often difficult to assess the genuine etymology of a placename...". And that makes good sourcing vital. Does anyone have access to the Oxford dictionary of place names or Birlin 2004 for Scotland? These are offered as general references that might cover some of the etymologies. If the etymologies can't be properly referenced, then sadly the article has to go. Dispersing a load of unsourced information into individual county articles isn't great. And sourcing stuff to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle is (in wikipedia terms) original research. I'm sad... Elemimele (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

Kenneth Naylor (via WP:PROD on 18 May 2025)