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

Buffer shot

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; sources for this are not apparent and if they were, this appears to be just a minor film technique. "Noddy" already covers use in news and interviews. There are currently no references. Nominating for AFD rather than boldly merging to see if there's any writing on buffer shots that I am missing. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) -- Dr Greg talk 02:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They’re both editing techniques using insertion of material but their respective goals are opposite (variety/continuity), so merging is not necessary and might be confusing, don’t you think? -Mushy Yank. 05:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It’s covered in reliable sources so I cannot see why it should be merged into another page. -Mushy Yank. 04:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Glossary of motion picture terms. While there have been several sources added, the entire article is a few sentences and could easily be merged into the article. AnotherWeatherEditor (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could, but why should it be merged? -Mushy Yank. 16:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank The article is currently a WP:DICDEF. DICDEF articles are not allowed, so we usually handle content like this inside glossaries. The encyclopedia won't lose any of this content it will just be housed in a different spot to comply with DICDEF. The cats can even remain on the redirect page so we won't lose navigation there either. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per Dr. Greg. This is a very closely related idea and could easily be accommodated there. I'd go so far as to argue that a buffer shot is a particular case of a cutaway. WP:NOPAGE definitely applies here, and I think this merge target makes the most sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) per the comment by Mushy Yank. Buffer shots have a different goal and merging would lead to confusion. Glossary of motion picture terms is the better target as I already indicated above.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the three related articles here are Buffer shot, Cutaway (filmmaking), and Nod shot. A nod shot is a kind of buffer shot which is a kind of cutaway. For example, see the first paragraph of Cutaway:

"The most common use of cutaway shots in dramatic films is to adjust the pace of the main action, to conceal the deletion of some unwanted part of the main shot, or to allow the joining of parts of two versions of that shot. For example, a scene may be improved by cutting a few frames out of an actor's pause; a brief view of a listener can help conceal the break. Or the actor may fumble some of his lines in a group shot; rather than discarding a good version of the shot, the director may just have the actor repeat the lines for a new shot, and cut to that alternate view when necessary."

Which basically describes a buffer shot. Commenters above have argued cutaways are mostly not meant for this, but according to the article itself, they often are. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary definition is "a shot that interrupts the main action of a film or television program to take up a related subject or to depict action supposed to be going on at the same time as the main action" by Merriam Webster. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) Merge to Cutaway (filmmaking) given that the article content is already there, there just aren't any citations. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.@Mrfoogles, 35.139.154.158, Mushy Yank, Dr Greg A buffer shot is not a cutaway and a cutaway is not a buffer shot. They both use film splicing, but they are two different film editing ideas. I would support them being together in a larger article on film splicing, but not together under the name cutaway. Likewise nod shot could be included in the film splicing article.4meter4 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your Ps and Qs

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

dictionary definition of an English phrase with speculation about its etymology, cited to primary sources. wikt:mind one's ps and qs accomplishes what this is trying to do much better. and rightly so, for Wikipedia is not a dictionary. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup. valid Wikipedia article. --Altenmann >talk 16:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep, there's nothing much wrong with the article, and it's certainly an encyclopedic topic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a grey area that's hard to sort between here and Wiktionary. The test is whether this is merely an (etymological) dictionary entry WP:DICT. My feeling is that where the social/historical interest in a phrase's origin outweighs the linguistic information about how it's used, it's possible to have a social/historically-biased encyclopedia entry. This doesn't preclude having a linguistically-biased dictionary entry in Wiktionary. It's not either/or. This particular phrase is interesting enough, and sufficiently sourced, to pass. Elemimele (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator's statement that the wiktionary page "accomplishes what this is trying to do much better" is incorrect. The Wikipedia article is much more in-depth. Toughpigs (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All singing, all dancing

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

Fails GNG, lacks significant coverage. The article consists of a dictionary definition already better covered at wikt:all singing, all dancing, along with some trivia about shows on which the phrase has been mentioned. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but without prejudice to its being recreated if someone finds more interesting sources for it. I am in favour of keeping at least some of these idiom-articles (currently we've got a whole load nominated) because in many cases the idioms have an interesting cultural history and are well-sourced, but this one is too thin and strays over the line into mere dictionary definition. Elemimele (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this does seem to be pretty threadbare, and it's hard to think of how there could be good sources for this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All Singing, All Dancing could be a valid redirect target. (Oinkers42) (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quick and the dead

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

The article consists of a dictionary definition, an etymology, and some mentions of its usage, pretty much all of which is original research. If there's any indication that this even counts as a standard phrase, it would do better as a Wiktionary entry. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete Original research --Altenmann >talk 16:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Christianity. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TNT of original research, but this is a potentially notable subject. The phrase gets a lot of coverage in research about the Book of Common Prayer and its language (eg [1]). I'm planning out an article called "Language in the Book of Common Prayer" (it will be largely framed by an OUP book of the same name by Stella Brook and OUP's Shakespeare's Common Prayers by Daniel Swift). This might be a good redirect to that article when the time comes. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of all the idioms currently up for AfD, this one has a long history in English language culture. It's even got itself into philosophy of literature[2], as well as of course featuring in discussions such as [3] (a blog, but a blog by acknowledged experts, Patricia T. O'Conner and Stewart Kellerman). It goes way beyond dictionary-matter, and is socially significant enough to land firmly in an encyclopedia. If we're not careful, we'll have to bud out a sub-article list or disambig on usage of the phrase for books, academic articles, films, poems and music. Elemimele (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the piss

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. An entry at Wiktionary already exists. A previous AfD nomination with the same rationale closed as keep, but the arguments presented for keep there seem to be of the "I like it" variety. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 10:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, South Africa, Ireland, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Agreed that WP shouldn't be a dictionary, but unlike Wolf in sheep's clothing above, this article at least does cite sources discussing the phrase and its origins and use, without the SYNTH. Could probably be trimmed down to a description and a few examples, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Whilst not a dictionary I believe this article has value beyond providing a definition for the phrase, including basic etymology and cultural significance across multiple countries. Current refs aren't exhaustive but provide a decent foundation to why this may meet notability standards.Triplefour (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dictionaries also provide basic etymology and general information about usage, whether it's British, Irish, American, etc. That's what Wiktionary does. Some of the article is also OR. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that article does look like an encyclopedic entry about the phrase as opposed to a dictionary definition. SportingFlyer T·C 18:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A fair bit of original content and uncited or poorly cited content has been removed since the preceding comments were made. I don't know if that shifts any of the opinions. Nurg (talk) 01:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has encyclopedic value backed up by references and does not represent a mere dictionary definition. Schwede 66 16:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the frying pan into the fire

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTDICT. The article was deleted twice before, in 2006 and 2008 respectively, over the same concerns. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE: The article is not "substantially the same" as earlier versions, as the proposer claimed in his original notice. It has been widened in scope to include fables based on the figure of speech, the original history of which is rightfully considered too on that account. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an encyclopedic subject supported by multiple reliable sources: more are certainly available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These "multiple reliable sources" are five different online dictionaries defining the term, and then some articles talking about mediaeval fables based on similar proverbs and idioms. None of it is significant coverage of the phrase, none of the content here is encyclopedic. Significant coverage has to be demonstrated, mere assertions to the contrary are not enough. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:08, 25 the 2024 (UTC)
  That's not right, nor is it advisable for AfD noms to attack any opposition. All the sources in the article appear to be reliable; whether the dictionary sources establish notability may be moot here, but the other sources certainly do. In general, notability is demonstrated by sources in the world; it is convenient for everybody if these are written up decently and placed in the article, but that is not the criterion for notability. But I'll have a look at the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Of the 13 sources listed, only 5 are dictionaries. There is an external link to the Wiktionary definition, but it is not used as a source. Nice image used under the Uses section. — Maile (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf in sheep's clothing

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists of etymology better fitting for Wiktionary, loosely thrown together trivia about literature inspired by the phrase, and uses of the phrase to describe the phenomenon of zoological mimicry, which already has its article. None of it is encyclopaedic, all of it can be (and is) better mentioned elsewhere. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 11:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Animal, and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could be convinced to keep the article if it were retitled and trimmed down to focus on the "wolf in sheep's clothing" as a literary device, because I'm sure sources for that could be easily found (that part of the article is good). But as it stands the article is an inherently OR assembly of concepts with no evidence that they have all been linked together by an external source. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICDEF - simple as that. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree WP isn't a dictionary but this article has some encyclopedic value. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has encyclopedic value as it's a popular idiomatic expression and this is evident in the average number of article views per month at around eight thousand. It only needs working on to remodel it within the scope of its title. Mekomo (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a consideration of a large body of literary fables inspired by the original figure of speech. Where I would agree is that the title is unfortunately titled, making the article appear to be focussed on the figure of speech. It might function better if it were rewritten under a composite title like, for example, The wolf in disguise. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is expressly about the phrase, and is titled correctly for that. A separate article on the literary trope might be viable, but this is not that article. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - okay, I see going back into the history, it was created as an article on the fable. The current pretty much says that the original is incorrect, and the fables aren't by Aesop, but are based on the phrase, not the other way around. The edits have also substantially altered the scope of the article. Would it make sense to change it again to be about the fables, or should a new article be created about the trope (a broader topic)? TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:30, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has encyclopedic value as a widely recognized idiom with significant cultural, historical, and literary relevance. It originates from biblical and fable traditions, and this phrase has transcended its initial context to become a universal metaphor for deception and hidden malevolence. I suggest including more about the cultural and societal implications of this phrase. However, minor issues can be resolved without deleting the entire article. DocZach (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- wikt:wolf in sheep's clothing already records where it originates from; dictionaries also record etymological information. It's use (not origin!) in fable traditions is also akin to myriad art and literature that are often based on this or that phrase, collecting all that on one page on the phrase is essentially trivia. People often use phrases as metaphors, yes, that's what they are for. Collecting a bunch of sources *using* a phrase, without any *mentioning* it, or describing it in more detail than a dictionary definition is not enough for an encyclopaedia. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 14:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources seem to be enough to pass WP:GNG. I would also argue that the article is encyclopedic, since as an idiom it warrants more coverage than a mere dictionary entry can provide.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you specify how exactly it meets GNG? Which sources contain significant coverage of this phrase? All I see are passing mentions, usage of the phrase, and dictionary definitions. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a major topic. It meets GNG the usual way, with multiple, independent, reliable sources. The zoology sources alone demonstrate its notability, but the article goes into much more depth than that on its literary side. It far exceeds a dictionary definition, to put it mildly. Nom argues in this thread that the article is (only) about the phrase, but that is not so: it is about the uses made of the phrase, an encyclopedic subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The zoological sources are about aggressive mimicry. We already have that article. These sources use the phrase in question, *in passing*, to describe that phenomenon. Using that to cobble together an article on the "uses of the phrase" is pure synthesis and original research. We do not have any significant coverage—none has been demonstrated—evidence free assertions otherwise should be discarded. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 16:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  ş agrre with him 94.54.9.25 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a WP:DICDEF. Meets WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of online language tutoring platforms

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NLIST. The one cited source discussing a group is about language learning apps in general, not "language tutoring platforms" specifically. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Products, and Lists. – Joe (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a non-trivial difference between "language tutoring platforms" and "language learning apps" like Duolingo or Babbel, which are listed at List of language self-study programs. But there isn't sourcing to suggest that Wikipedia needs a separate lists. I'm not sure if I prefer some form of merge (or a redirect to a category), but it should not be kept as-is. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The topic of online language learning does have WP:RS, but the actual platforms that are racking up hundreds of thousands of end-user hours and tens of thousands of tutors seems to be harder to source, though the sites and their userbase evidently exist.GobsPint (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dobbert

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

Delete - article has been unsourced since its inception. The sketchy source that I found earlier in November turns out to be cribbed from Marble (toy) anyway. My WP:BEFORE found no other mention of the word dobbert to mean a marble. So I do not think that this is sufficiently notable. N.B. https://archive.org/details/glossaryoflancas00nodauoft/page/106/mode/2up has dobber as does https://dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/dabber_n2, but not dobbert. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and United Kingdom. SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails verification; I found the same as above. I also have to say that I don't think WP is the place for a glossary of regional British slang, and never mind the questionable "just-so" story of its origin. Mangoe (talk) 12:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Language Monitor

AfDs for this article:

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

"Company" identifies no product or marketable service, notes no clients, as of October 2024 has no recent web or social media presence, url is for sale. Sources are dead and unrecoverable. It does however seem to have been a prolific producer of press releases and had garnered some publicity. Just no evidence it has ever existed as a real company. Doprendek (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I share the nominator's skepticism about the company's status as a company. However, claims attributed to this company have been reported frequently in the media. This in turn has triggered numerous debunkings in the linguistics blogosphere, as well as posts complaining more generally about the company's tendency towards misinformation. This isn't quite the gold standard of SIGCOV, but it's in the ballpark. Additionally, I think there's an IAR argument to be made in favour of keeping, namely that the article (if well-maintained) could help journalists vet their sources. Botterweg (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a defunct website that Language Log didn't like 15 years ago. Is there any more to be said? Older versions of this article have excessively-long wordlists from their website added by promotional editing, but nothing interesting about the company. Just because it is cited more than twice doesn't mean it meets GNG. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to support keeping this just because non-US sources mistakenly believed it to be something it was not; but I acknowledge that if there are enough of those sources there will not be consensus to delete. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Several analysis of this company in Gscholar, [4], [5] were the first two that came up. They seem like RS, in Russian I think. Oaktree b (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some book mentions of their world language clock [6]. Sounds interesting, too bad it's not around anymore. Oaktree b (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a promotional book written by the company's CEO, so it's not an independent source. Botterweg (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you combine it with the other sources, it helps give context. The first two in my first comment are fine. Oaktree b (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The choices here are between the derision of American linguists (some of whom I know to have bona fides) and the praise of folks publishing in "European Publisher", where the remainder of that site has some dubious grammar and has all of the hallmarks of a non-serious enterprise. For example, on the EP web site one of the subjects they claim to publish in is Education, but when you click on Education you are told there are no publications. Various other links also open blank pages. The claim is that EP is based in the UK - all of the editors, staff, and any authors I saw are Russian. Sorry to bang on about this, but I'm guessing "predatory publication." Lamona (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles