Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Language

[edit]

List of words with the suffix -ology

[edit]
Previous AfDs for this article:


List of words with the suffix -ology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is already a suitable page for redirect. Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to -logy. There is no great and compelling reason why this content could not be maintained as a section of the existing article with that header. BD2412 T 21:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The compelling reason is WP:NOTDICT, which I elaborate on below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: WP:NOTDICT allows for articles such as this. I think the confusion here is that this is a list article that happens to include definitions as secondary information. That is easy to solve as WP:NOTDICT says: "Both dictionaries and encyclopedias contain definitions." Quoting from WP:WORDISSUBJECT: "In some cases, a word or phrase may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.)". This "article on words" includes an introduction with secondary sources, many of which cover the general topic of ology words. This meets the threshold for notability and WP:STANDALONE. This could be even better met by merging as suggested above. Furthermore, the majority of the terms in this list are already in Wikipedia, indicating notability above that of typical Wiktionary entries. Finally, there is a long precedent for lists relating to words in Wikipedia. Lists of English words provides some examples, as will a search for the various categories for lists of words. Rublamb (talk) 01:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a misreading of NOTDICT. Please see my explanation below. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I requested this at WT:AFD, but apparently someone else nominated it without my nom statement, which I'm copying below:

    Contested WP:BLAR. This list is a clear violation of WP:NOTDICT. There is no underlying concept for the list here, merely words that share a particular suffix. We shouldn't have this list more than we should have lists for every possible suffix (or prefix) in English (not to mention German, Swahili, etc etc). There's nothing special about this particular suffix that warrants a list like this. The little bit of possibly encyclopedic content in the intro is already covered at the article on -logy (which I'm still a little skeptical about, but it's at least near the border, not 20 miles past it).

    To elaborate on the NOTDICT failure a little, note that this is akin to the example there which indicates that "rocket" has a single entry at Wiktionary, while it has multiple pages at Wikipedia (salad rocket, rocket engine, rocket vehicle, etc). Here we have words like both "biology" and "technology", which have the same suffix, but that suffix has a different meaning in each -- indeed, the lead of the list even points out this fact.

    Likewise, there are words which share the same underlying suffix of -logy (which -ology is merely a form of), like wikt:archelogy (not archaeology!), which is still a field of study, but has the alternate form of the suffix. This is akin to another red flag indicated at NOTDICT (words with different spellings but the same meaning should be at the same article). Ditto for words like "trilogy".

    And to add a bit based on the above merge proposal, I would specifically oppose that, since there's nothing to merge here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thems the breaks. If you want to nominate things without another editor exercising discretion in the process you can register an account. Jahaza (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As described in the article's lede, the connection between the components of this list is that words ending in "ology" or "logy" are about a field of study or discipline. There might be a few exceptions that are included for completionism and educational purposes, but these do not diminish the overall concept behind this list. The differing meanings come from the front half of the word, not the suffix. Rublamb (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that's not the connection, as I mentioned above, as there are words with this suffix that are not a field of study or discipline, such as "technology" (there are others, too). And there are plenty of fields of study that don't use either suffix, such as physics, economics, etc etc. The only actual link here is a suffix, which violates NOTDICT, both in letter and spirit, for the reasons I explained above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 11:54, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The common thread is defined in the cited secondary sources and in the topic's main article. Oxford Languages dictionary defines technology as "the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences". Thus, it is a field of study. We could essentially rename this article "List of fields of study" which is actually an interesting approach. Then, this would be a glossary that has a more obvious reason for being complied. The definitions, which are secondary content in this article, could also be removed, which is something I considered doing a while back. I believe that would also solve your dictionary-ish concerns. Rublamb (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article in question was nominated for deletion previously. This AfD should likely be updated to mention that more prominently. DonIago (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, but you could have just done so yourself. Note that it was speedily kept more on procedural grounds than anything else, running only about 90 minutes, so is more than ripe for a new discussion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I could have, if I'd known how to. DonIago (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge, based upon the above discussion. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge. Merging this indiscriminate list would damage the proposed target, and it is a clear case of WP:NOTDICT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is best thought of as a set index WP:SETINDEX and is useful for navigation. Jahaza (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SIA pretty clearly explains why this isn't one. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid pointing to an entire article doesn't really explain what your objection is. Jahaza (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge Redlinks that don't go to an article about a respective study should probably be removed, but this is an appropriate navigational list. Reywas92Talk 19:03, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not valid as a navigational list any more than "Articles that end in -ism" is valid for the reasons I described above...or articles that start with "metro-" ...or pick any old random prefix or suffix. Are you saying "technology" should be removed? What about "archelogy" (the example I gave above, which doesn't end in -ology, but is a field of study). What about "physics"? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengali group of languages

[edit]
Bengali group of languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article cannot be expanded and has nothing to say what cannot be said in articles such as Bengali language, History of Bengali language and more. Capitals00 (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be WP:OR as mentioned above. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New England Translators Association

[edit]
New England Translators Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

re-nominated as someone removed the PROD tag at the last second to create an implausible redirect. Per original reasoning "Unreferenced for 18 years and fails WP:ORG" -- FMSky (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Terp (music industry jargon)

[edit]
Terp (music industry jargon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. This article is just a definition, etymology, and usage examples of a jargon term; that's a dictionary entry. I don't see evidence that this article can be expanded significantly beyond a dictionary entry for this term. —Bkell (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Virtually devoid of content anyways. Could be mentioned at "dance" (essentially its definition) but I'm not sure a redirect is even worth it - that sort of disambiguation isn't likely to be searched for. 16:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article "Terp (music industry jargon)" is verifiable, properly sourced, and documents a historical term used pervasively in the music and dance entertainment industry, especially in the mid-20th century.
I don't want to clutter this AfD discussion. But, here, I will step-out on a limb to show how prevalent the word ("terp" not "terpsichore") is, as a standard music industry term. Click on any of the below 277 issues of Billboard (from 1945–1949) where, in nearly every issue, the word "terp" is used – usually multiple times per issue. The term appeared consistently in Billboard's professional discourse — as a noun ("terp orchestra", "terp band"), verb ("to terp"), and adjective ("terp tempo").
Examples (short list):
    1. "Good dancers can terp without music" — Billboard. Vol. 58, no. 37. September 14, 1946. p. 3
    2. "Notch above terp trivia" — Billboard. Vol. 61, no. 50. December 10, 1949. p. 39
    3. "Terp number" = dance arrangement
    4. "Terp orchestra" = dance orchestra
This isn't WP:NOTDICT — the article includes etymology, historical usage, and is easily expandable with a section on "Usage in trade publications." Merging into "Dance" or "Terpsichore" would lose the specialized industrial context. This is not a general word — it's a trade term with decades of industry use.
Wikipedia should preserve — not erase — documented historical language used in cultural industries. – Eurodog (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Before changing my stance, I'm still curious what direction you'd go in to expand it out of a basic dictionary entry. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Dance. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, textbook case of WP:NOTDICT. Eurodog said above:

    This isn't WP:NOTDICT — the article includes etymology, historical usage, and is easily expandable with a section on "Usage in trade publications."

    But yes, this is exactly what NOTDICT talks about. Articles should generally be about the concept represented by a word, not about the word itself, which clearly isn't the case here. Words have a pretty high bar for notability, and this isn't even close. Tracing usage like this without secondary coverage further violates WP:NOR. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note:I have removed a ridiculous list of 277 cite templates that are just 277 links to old Billboard magazine articles that use it from a 4 year span or so in the '40s. If you really want to look at it, you can view the old revision that has it here. It was 50k of wikitext that could have been summed up in like 2 setences, making editing a major pain in the ass. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Ukraine

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of surnames in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fully unsourced, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Absolutiva (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pahari (Poonchi)

[edit]
Pahari (Poonchi) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed drafification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT applies. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Pakistan, and Jammu and Kashmir. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know if I'm seeing enough here for an article. The lone external link, presumably added to be a citation, does not contain the word "Pahari" at all after a Ctrl+F. Problems with my in-browser PDF reader, thanks to IP for making me re-check. Yes, there are two instances of the word in the document.[1] I also doubt the reliability of the publication Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society itself. If there is a citation that could back up something said in the article, it could be merged to Pahari language or Poonch District, India (depending on what can be said and sourced) but I'm not sure I'm seeing that right now. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Stricken in part and updated. Yes, it looks like the best merge/redirect target would be Pahari-Pothwari#Kashmir, Murree and the Galyat where it is already bolded. I'm not seeing much to merge that isn't already covered by the article. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Poonchi Pahari is a dialect of Pahari, falling under the Western Pahari group. It is closely related to other dialects such as Chibhali Pahari, Mirpuri Pahari, and Kotli Pahari. It is only a dialect and does not require a separate article or classification as a distinct language. Only a few words are pronounced differently, but they are easily understood by speakers of Chibhali or Mirpuri Pahari or any Pahari. Mutual intelligibility is high across these dialects. HistoryofKashmir (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi HistoryofKashmir (talk), I am no expert in the History of Kashmir but did a bit of research and spoke to some scholars. Both Poonchi and Pothwari are closely related dialects, if not languages, but definitely are not identical or exactly the same. Pothwari is spoken in Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Mirpur, and surrounding areas in Pakistan, and by many in the UK, the Mirpuri immigrants.
    Poonchi is spoken mainly in Poonch, Rajouri districts of Jammu and Kashmir (India) and only in parts of Azad Kashmir (Pakistan), what we call PoK in India.
    Though similar linguistically, in a narrow sense there are vast variations in pronunciation, vocabulary and usage - basically influenced by the culture and histories on either side of the Line of Control and that makes it a major difference! My personal feeling... Davidindia (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The entirety of what the link says is:

    In the southern areas of Poonch and Rajouri, the primary language is Poonchi, also known as Pahari or Potohari. This language is part of the Lahnda/Punjabi family within the broader Indo-Aryan languages

    I'm no expert with this stuff (and can't judge the reliability of the source either), but is this just the same thing as Pahari-Pothwari? There's certainly nothing in the source to justify a separate article at the very least. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi 35.139.154.158 (talk) I am also no expert, but I guess one is an Indo iranian language and the other, Indo Aryan. Related but not the same. Davidindia (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have added info and refs. Please see if it helps -notability. I feel it is an imp. article that can be developed as sources exist. I found thru unreferenced drive. thanks and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidindia (talk • contribs) 10:59, 4 June 2025

References

  1. ^ Nazki, Sameeul Haq (17 September 2024). "The Difficulties of English Language Acquisition in the State of Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Survey". Journal of Language and Linguistics in Society (45): 33–44. doi:10.55529/jlls.45.33.44.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 06:55, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davidindia, If I'm reading correctly the "History" section you've added, would it be fair to say that the first paragraph with bullets points and the second paragraph (as of today) are general history not specific to "Pahari (Poonchi)" but rather the section on Pahari-Pothwari? If so, (but I'm happy to be corrected) I think merge would still be the best option. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bobby Cohn Yes, I think three articles on the same dialects may not augur well. But i did not get any consensus among my scholar friends in a language school. Please see my reply above. Basically they are different dialects spoken on either side of the Line of Control. I came across in random search during unref drive: #June25 I guess we should merge. thanks! Davidindia (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1295000209"