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

Trans*

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

The reason for deletion is WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTDICT. The main coverage of this subject is the Oxford dictionary definition and an article about "why oxford dictionary added this word".

Based on a WP:BEFORE analysis, this neologism seems to be mentioned by mostly niche woke/sjw sources (like [1]). So I do not believe it has attained enough use to fall outside of:

A neologism is a word that is still in the process of becoming accepted into mainstream language.

-WP:NEO

In addition, the article was tagged for notability for half a year. Historyexpert2 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Historyexpert2 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of LGBTQ+ studies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please use WP:RS criteria for assessing whether a source is good enough, not WP:POV value judgements like "woke/sjw". The source you linked, transtudent.org, is clearly not a reliable source, but that's due to its being a website for an organisation, not due to its being "woke/sjw". If we're aiming for neutral point of view we shouldn't be dissing political views but following WP policy. Lijil (talk) 03:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, the most recent contributions to the article involved lots of cleanup, just a few days ago and the last edit said the person was going to work more on it, so I suggest waiting. Lijil (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Suri (flower)

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

WP:NOTDICT. See wikt:سوری#Persian and Chaharshanbe Suri#Etymology. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. aaronneallucas (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gezelligheid

AfDs for this article:

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

Textbook case of WP:NOTDICT. The article consists of definitions, etymology, usage, and similar words, all precisely standard dictionary fare. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:01, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per original discussion. Anyone who's been in The Netherlands would've heard this word repeatedly. The article provides ample context beyond what a dictionary would, and I remind folks that this being en.wikipedia does not mean we should be English-centric. PK650 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The original discussion resulted in a delete; the article was then recreated about 2 weeks later. Being a word one would hear repeatedly hardly makes it deserving of an article. I saw "uitgang" all over the place during my short trip there, but we don't have an article for that. Moreover, I'm a little offended at the insinuation that this had anything to do with the entry being in a language other than English. I have !voted to delete (and nominated for deletion) articles about English words of the same sort in the past. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:06, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Walter Ego 06:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that the current content of the article fits WP:NOTDICT. But sufficient sources exist to have the topic (the word and the cultural phenomon) meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. For example, there is the book Gezellig! Hoe typisch Nederlands is gezelligheid?. Dajasj (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... but this is the english language wikipedia. - Walter Ego 08:52, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how that is relevant? We write in English about everything that is relevant, regardless of language? Dajasj (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... if you cannot see how my comment is relevant, then are you sure you should be here? There are a wealth of books available, not written in english. So what? - Walter Ego 09:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, could you please clarify what you meant with your first comment? Dajasj (talk) 10:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My first comment is my delete ivote. It means that I believe we should delete the nominated for deletion article. - Walter Ego 11:33, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I meant your comment addressing me (although I admit I could have been more specific). Dajasj (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, my comment is quite clear, particularly as I followed it up with a follow up remark. I can see how this article written in Dutch would perhaps be pertinent to the Dutch wikipedia, but in english, it just needs consigning to the WPB file as irrelevant to the english wikipedia. Is there a Dutch wiki btw? - Walter Ego 11:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
💀💀💀

@Walter Ego You do realize that

a) There are over 300 language Wikipedias, and yes including Dutch Wikipedia.

and

b) We use sources regardless of language. It's 1 of many ways you write something as unbiased as possible. Who'd want to read something about Tenochitlan without Spanish-language sources, about katanas without Japanese-language sources? Like Dajasj has previously said, we write in English, but notability is not exclusive to the English language. TansoShoshen (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
... and this word, unknown to me and I suspect 99% of non Dutch speakers is notable exactly Why? I could make a much better case for the word ibn, which at least has a definite meaning when translated to english, but This nommed word is all fuzzy wuzzy and flexible round the edges. Nobody wants to read about Tenochitlan btw, and I wont look until this is closed. - Walter Ego 17:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, I just noticed the three grey men. What do they mean in context? - Walter Ego 17:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed those, I meant to copy-paste the < br > for multiple line breaks for readability and instead had skulls on my clipboard. My mistake. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire category of words with no direct English translation. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Layer 8

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

If I understand the topic correctly, Layer 8 is a humorous term used to refer to the user. But the article is not about users; it is about Layer 8 as a word. And I don't consider that word notable under WP:GNG. What is more important: usage of a word isn't coverage of the word. Mere usage doesn't constitute SIGCOV. Janhrach (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Internet. Janhrach (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Layer 8 is pretty widely used in networking to refer to the user or the political layer. ie. a layer above the technical stack, which is subject to exploits (see Social_engineering_(security)), user error (sometimes humourously, but often not), and which is a real factor in network operation. The article could use some better sources and editing, but this is notable, which it why it's on my watchlist. Gladrim (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Layer 8 is pretty widely used – That is an inclusion criterion for Wiktionary, but not for Wikipedia. User error already exists. Also, this article covers Layer 8 as word, not as a concept. Janhrach (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs significant cleanup, but I do not agree that marking this for deletion is the correct approach. I'd suggest replacing the deletion tag with WP:CLEANUP. Lets give folks a chance to clean this up before throwing away a 19-year old article.

User error doesn't cover the concept adequately, as this is about all user interactions, not just their errors. Bruce Schneier wrote about layers 8 (user), 9 (organisation) and 10 (government) and these concepts have been pretty widely quoted in other literature. Pretty sure a keen editor can improve this article's notability without too much strain. Gladrim (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A consensus has still not formed. Relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 11WB (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

Redirects for Discussion