Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin peoples

Latin peoples

Latin peoples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Too many disputes regarding who is or isn't "Latin". Article doesn't even stay on topic. Original European ^(talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - "stay on topic"... Ha! What topic? We already have Hispanic and Latino Americans, Latin America, Romance languages and Latino (demonym). Except for something about Mussolini being angry at the Nazis, this article contributes what to our collective wisdom? I'd be fine with an article about the history of the people who spoke/speak Latin (though we already have Contemporary Latin in addition to Latin) but that's not what this is. Stalwart111 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Peoples are not the languages they speak, and what has Hispanic and Latino Americans or Latin America has to do with this broader concept? This is like saying that we cannot have an article about Europeans because English people is already covered and the English can't decide whether they are European or not. Diego (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Romance-speaking Europe might be added to Stalwart's list. I am neutral on the question of deletion. Cnilep (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, speak of the devil and he shall appear. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance-speaking Europe (2nd nomination). Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. No reliable source has been presented for years based on which a coherent article could be developed. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious Keep as a broad concept article, given the wealth of references that were provided when it was suggested to merge the page with its subtopic. People from Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Moldova, Belgium, as well as ancient Foreti, Alba Longa, Tolerus or Velia - all these are not Latin-American, and they aren't Romance languages either, but they are Latin (i.e. Roman) people. Note that there are articles about this topic that the nominator says doesn't exist at least in the Spanish, Aragonese, Belarus, Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian and Slovak Wikipedias. Diego (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And all their sources refer to the Romance languages. OR give birth to OR. That is all. Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And that is a problem to show that the topic exists and is notable, exactly how? Latin people is people who talk romance languages. Diego (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

However, no reliable source exists which writes of the topic "Latin peoples". Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the sources provided? They do write about latin peoples; among other things, they explain the origin of their languages, the expansion of their ethnic groups through the world, their history, their sexuality... What's not reliable in that? Diego (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A reliable source of one people which is considered a Latin people is not a source based on which an article on the Latin peoples can be written: we cannot write an article of the mammals based on a book on the sexual behaviour of dogs. Borsoka (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Move to Romance-speaking peoples? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see it moved to Romance-speaking peoples (I prefer Romanic peoples or Romance peoples to match Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Hellenic, Ugric, etc.) I am in favor of an article that deals with this major subdivision of European peoples, I don't know who in their right mind wouldn't. I am still baffled as to why there isn't an article when there is an article for every other Indo-European ethnolinguistic group. The only reason I proposed deletion is because certain users wish to discriminate against the Romanic peoples (I still have no idea how an admin didn't warn them), and I was tired of constant incivility. Original European ^(talk) 12:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Afro-Eurasian, please decide what you want. Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not "Afro-Eurasian". Please see WP:HA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and WP:BATTLE. You should familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies, like I did when I became a Wikipedian less than a month ago. Original European ^(talk) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Afro-Eurasian, would you please decide what do you want: do you want the article to be deleted (as you suggested) or have you changed your mind. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I am not Afro-Eurasian. Did you read my comment above? Perhaps you didn't because you are too concerned with your little imaginary world. I stated my opinion above and it is clear what I would like to see, as would most others. Interpret it as you wish. But please, do not add unrelated comments on this page. Original European ^(talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you want to delete it? Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

My first option would be to have it renamed to a more neutral name that doesn't strictly imply descendants of the Latini tribe, the descendants of Romans, or as you try to imply, Latin Americans. Multiple editors also seek a better option than deletion. Original European ^(talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Draga Afro-Eurasian, if my understanding is correct, you suggested that this article should be deleted, because you wanted to rename it. I am afraid, you are a little bit confused. Please clarify what you really want. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what "draga" means, and I am not Afro-Eurasian (see talk page). I am not the confused one. The only reason I even thought of deletion is because trying to communicate with you is like talking to a rock that repeats itself and doesn't understand the concept of basic communication skills, such as listening to what others have to say. Original European ^(talk) 13:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Draga, interestingly some hours ago you could speak Romanian [1]. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So you suggested that the article should be deleted, because you do not want it to be deleted. Interesting approach. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there are other editors that pointed out why it should not be deleted, and since deletion was never my first option (see here), I believe that the article should be renamed and then we can discuss other things regarding the article. Original European ^(talk) 13:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

????? If your favorite option is the renaming of the article, why do you suggest its deletion?????? Do you frequently state the opposite to what you actually want? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've got to go to school and I do not have time to constantly repeat myself (I'm starting to feel crazy). To any other editor that reads this and is against deletion: I apologize for suggesting deletion but as you can see, it was the best option in my head at the time. Like I've said before, deletion was never option number 1. Original European ^(talk) 13:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Draga, one who says the opposite he/she actually wants must feel crazy. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Merging Latin/Romance-speaking articles seems like the way to go, with pages like this redirecting to appropriate sections. I'm opposed to simply deleting this article. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless sources provided. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
• Keep and redirect to Romance languages, where we could include the phrase: "Peoples speaking Romance languages are called Romance peoples or Latin peoples". There are no less than 24.800 which refer to Latin peoples, the expression is quite often used. A WP:DAB could also be chosen if there are also other meanings except this one. 79.117.180.113 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you had read the 20th-century sources you provided you would have found that they use the expression in the context of the early history of Ancient Rome and her Latins. You may not know but in the Ancient Rome no Romance languages were spoken, because these languages developed after the fall of the Roman Empire. Please try to add proper references and not to waste other editors' time. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so a WP:DAB is the solution. Why do you prefer a deletion instead of a WP:DAB? 79.117.180.113 (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)