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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language.

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[edit]

Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft[edit]

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

Only appears to be mentioned in the context of long German words; I can't find a source which gives significant coverage of this "nonexistent sub-organization of the DDSG" beyond its name being long and funny. As Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY, this might be best saved for Wikitionary or maybe a brief mention on an article about German compound nouns. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:03, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The page's purpose seems more of a gimmick than anything else. Peculiarities of a given language can simply be mentioned in the language's article itself. ArkHyena (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly written, very little evidence of notability or even really its existence as a word. However, the word at least does appear in the Guinness Book of Records 1996 (which can be borrowed via Internet Archive, see [1]), but with the "ä" given as "ae" instead. But they don't tell us where they got the word from, and in any case per WP:RSPSS the Guinness World Records "should not be used to establish notability".

Some other observations of mine here, maybe not relevant to deleting the article itself but may be helpful anyway:

This article was created in 2005, which from what I can tell had lower standards for sourcing or notability than today, unless I'm mistaken? (If it does, that may explain the poor quality of the article as it is now)
The only inline source in use as of writing is from h2g2, a user generated encyclopedia.
Is there even a source for the suborganisation being nonexistent at all? It feels like a lot of this article is possibly original analysis, which would fail WP:OR.

Monster Iestyn (talk) 21:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, Transportation, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources I find are the Urban Dictionary and various word groups, none of which help notability. Almost survived for 20 yrs in wiki without deletion. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, though the English language sources only show novelty, and the German sources aren't fantastic - however between the tango, the company, and the fact the word is used in German as an example of German compound word usage. [2] is one example. SportingFlyer T·C 22:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like merging with Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a viable option. Nardog (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merging into Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft is a good idea if there's a couple reliable sources, yeah. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The German wikipedia has more context and sources. This might not need a stand-alone article but there's enough coverage to avoid deletion. Reywas92^Talk 00:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fáilte[edit]

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

Not sure if this violates WP:DICT (wikipedia is not a dictionary). While I see why we have Alba and éire, (Scottish Gaelic and Irish for Scotland and Ireland respectively) because it refers to a country, do we really need a dictionary for a specific world in another language? For anyone wondering, fáilte is the Irish word for welcome. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ireland, and Scotland. JuniperChill (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; make it more explicitly a disambig page. —Tamfang (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would turn it into a DAB, as Tamfang suggests. I concur with JuniperChill that it is not appropriate to keep as a dictionary-like entry, but since there are three Wikipedia pages containing the word, a DAB may be appropriate. Cnilep (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnolinguistic regions of South Asia[edit]

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

WP:OR WP:UNSOURCED WP:NPOV. Completely unnecessary generalisations about which regions supposedly "belong" to which "ethnic groups" just because their native languages are widely spoken there. This is ethnic nationalist nonsense without any encyclopedic value. All the relevant information has been gathered much better in articles such as Ethnic groups in South Asia, Languages of South Asia, and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Geography, Bangladesh, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and India. NLeeuw (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and good case made by NLeeuw. Poor sources, editorial bias and problem with verification. RangersRus (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meff[edit]

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

Falls under WP:NOTDICT - already an entry in Wiktionary. Orphaned page. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and England. Orange sticker (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yep, not a dictionary, and not enough coverage for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. One or two reliable sources (eg. New Statesman) give a definition alongside coverage of the Paul Nuttall thing, but nothing like "the social or historical significance of the term" as per the policy. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Hoberman[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Multiple WP:BLP issues with the page, as well as sourcing issues and WP:NOR. The article was created by a WP:SPA IP address back in 2005. GuardianH (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Language, History, Sports, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete unless better sources can be found. I couldn't find anything independent of Hoberman himself or University of Texas. Cnilep (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep -- ugh, this article is a mess, a minefield of BLP and SPA and NOR problems (even the photo!). I won't weep for it if it's deleted. But we do have a full professor at a major research university (usually a good sign of a WP:PROF likely pass) with books by U. Chicago Press and Houghton Mifflin, which is probably enough with any of the controversies to pass WP:AUTHOR. But what a mess. There's the old saying "AfD is not cleanup" but a Soft Delete (=expired PROD, no prejudice against creating again) might be a good way to deal with the major BLP issues. And yet, I think the subject is more likely notable than not. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as NACADEMIC. I did some bold editing, removed promotional stuff, but also added in some academic references. His most controversial book gets over ~1100 cites on G-scholar. It is quite possible that many of those are debunking his thesis, but I believe that still counts toward academic qualifications. Lamona (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of The Lord of the Rings[edit]

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

Not every bit of LOTR minutiae needs to be recorded here, fails WP:LISTN as a subject that hasn't received significant attention as a group, No idea why "Elrond's library", a French shop, is in the lead singled out as a source for this either. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Language, Literature, and Lists. Fram (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly not "minutiae", but a remarkable indication of the novel's importance. The source you mention is really just a footnote or aside, it has no special importance. If editors really don't want a stand-alone list, then of course we can merge it back to Translating The Lord of the Rings, but that seems quite extreme to me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure a list is more of an indication of importance than a summary thereof would be (e.g. "It has been translated into X languages as of year Y"). TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a far better substantiated indication; and of course it allows readers to check for themselves in whichever language they may happen to be interested. I may note that this list has existed in some form since 2008: it has been edited by many hands. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the fact that the article The Lord of the Rings lists links to 113 translations. The figure of 113 is already a "remarkable indication of the novel's importance". Anyone interested in these translations can find all that they want to know by following the appropriate links. So my recommendation would be delete. Athel cb (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that there is another complete list that readers can refer to. There is not. This is the only complete listing on the internet and it is incomparably useful for collectors. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those articles that has no better home. Wikipedia provides for list articles, and this one satisfies the conditions. Indeed, this provision seems to explicitly rationalize lists like this one: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion. I read Wikipedia’s acceptance of lists to be quite broad, since the guidelines discuss such acceptable topics as lists of plants in some obscure taxa, lists of words, and so forth, and explicitly states that the individual list elements need not be notable. The reason Wikipedia is the best home for this material is that a scholarly source would not be up-to-date, while copying from them could be copyright violation, since it would be significant content copied in its entirety. Meanwhile, fan sites regularly go belly-up, leaving a gap in cataloging important literature. The list notability guidelines provide for this kind of list: The remarkable diversity of translations has been noted in scholarly circles many times (these references are needed in the article, such as from List_of_translations_of_The_Lord_of_the_Rings). Given the precedence and guidelines on Wikipedia, I do not see this article as being a candidate for deletion — certainly not until lists of less general interest get cleaned out and the guidelines get tightened to exclude, rather than include, this kind of list. Strebe (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The fact that a novel was translated to over 57 languages should automatically make a list like this notable- that is amazing in itself. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NLIST. While being translated into 57 different languages is certainly impressive, how impressive something is isn't a valid inclusion criteria for lists. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: That may be so, but WP:NLIST is fulfilled based on other criteria (see above and below). Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as evidenced in the notability of Translating The Lord of the Rings and the sources listed there, as well as further secondary sources like Translating and Transmediating Children’s Literature. So I see no policy-based reason for deletion. The effort of writing the list has already been done, so we don't have to worry about if such efforts would be better spent elsewhere. So I also do not see any benefit for the user of Wikipedia in deleting this article. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the arguments raised below, a merge back to Translating The Lord of the Rings based on WP:PAGEDECIDE is also fine with me. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills WP:NLIST as noted in other responses. This article is extremely useful for collectors, especially since Elrond's Library is no longer an actively-maintained source. (For example, I learned of the new Belarusian translation here and was able to add it to my collection.) This list has been continuously expanded since that list ceased its run about a decade ago. Items such as the recent additions of the new Slovenian translation, the new Mongolian translation, the new Belarusian translation, the expansion of the Sinhala translation, etc. are examples of recent edits and the usefulness of this list beyond where Elrond's Library left off. This is the only list of its kind on the internet. It is cited in other internet compilations such as here. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL. The usefulness of an article is not a criteria for inclusion via WP:NLIST. Industrial Insect (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If usefulness isn't a positive criterion for a Wikipedia list, then what is the purpose of Wikipedia in the first place? --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't seem like this passes WP:NLIST. We have only 1 good source for this, and there doesn't seem to be anything special about Lord of the Rings translations specifically. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only complete list that there is and other lists actually refer to this one. If you want collectors' sites with partial lists referenced (to get around your comment about "only 1 good source"), those can be added without any real fanfare. But this is an invaluable list for collectors (and there are many of us), that's why we keep it up to date. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be rude when I say this, but you clearly didn't read WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:What Wikipedia is not. ~~Additionally, this list should NOT contain information found nowhere else per WP:OR~~. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that this list didn't contain information found nowhere else, I said that this is the only complete list. Other lists are partial. This is the only list that contains all the information in one place. And I don't really care about what some WP philosopher wrote in "WP:ITSUSEFUL" because I reiterate my question, "If Wikipedia isn't useful, then why does it exist in the first place?" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant wikilawyering over some article or other is one of the biggest criticisms of Wikipedia as a real tool and repository of information. This list is clearly useful to members of the LOTR community, but someone running a bot (who would never have read it in the first place) found it and is now indiscriminately wanting to take a weed whacker to it. It is cases like this where WP:AGF doesn't really apply. If it were a case of "Kiev" versus "Kyiv", that's a useful discussion (I spent a decade involved). But trying to get rid of a useful consolidation of information seems to be a waste of editors' time. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is, obviously, supposed to be useful. However, usefulness is not a reason for inclusion. We are an encyclopedia, not just a collection of things which are useful (besides, what is and isn't useful is an extremely subjective argument). Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL wasn't written by "some WP philosopher", it's one of our most popular essays which is still being modified by editors to this day. And what do you mean AGF doesn't apply here? You don't assume malice behind someone's intentions just because they disagree with you! Industrial Insect (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But discussing about inclusion based on WP:ITSUSEFUL is kind of a theoretical discussion, when the main claim for exclusion, that the topic should fail WP:LISTN, has already been refuted by suggesting appropriate sourcing, isn't it? Daranios (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry, I've overlooked something. @Industrial Insect: You claim we have only one good for this. But did you consider the sources in Translating The Lord of the Rings#Bibliography, talking about the topic of translations as a group? And then of course there is an enormous number of sources talking about and analyzing specific translations. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sources are more about the process of translating LOTR (which is why I believe the article fails NLIST), rather than the actual translations themselves. Then again, I don't have access to the sources since they're offline, so I may be wrong Industrial Insect (talk) 23:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not just about the process, but also include lists of translations into particular languages and editorial comments about the translations and their place within the history of translation. In other words, they include partial lists. Also, some of the argumentation against the LOTR translation list is that it isn't "notable". How do you measure "notable"? Is it measured in terms of clicks? If so, then 90% of the lists and articles in Wikipedia should be deleted. The true nature of Wikipedia is that virtually unlimited bandwidth means that we can have articles on Waurika, Oklahoma, a speck of a burg in southwestern Oklahoma whose only claim to fame might be that its name means "worm eaters" in Comanche. How many clicks does THAT article generate and how notable on the world stage is it? This list is specialized to people who are interested in one particular book and its notability is that, unlike the vast majority of books ever written, it has been translated into dozens of languages. I daresay that this list generates more clicks than Waurika, Oklahoma in a year. I refer to it regularly and it serves as the source material for abbreviated lists in many LOTR fan sites outside Wikipedia. Notability should never be judged in an absolute sense, but in a relative sense. The question of notability should always be, "Is this list useful or notable to the Wikipedia users who find interest in the topic?" It should never be, "Is this list useful or notable to the average Wikipedia user?" As you can probably see from the discussion, there are more editors who find interest in the topic who want to keep this list than not. That's the true measure of "notability". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your obvious problem with what Wikipedia defines as notable (as found in WP:N) is completely outside of this AfD's scope. Please stop arguing that our encyclopedia's definition of notability is wrong, it was created this way for a reason. Anyways, ignoring the irrelevant arguments after the first two sentences, the history of translation counts as "the process of translation". I'm just not seeing how the sources discuss the translations as a group. Further explanation would be helpful. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: You mentioned that you see one good source. Aside from the others already mentioned which may not all be accessible online, From Imagination to Faërie, pp. 68-73, gives some points about specific translations but mainly discussed issues of importance to the translations as a group. Daranios (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the source, but I still feel like it's just talking about the process of translation. Not much about the translations themselves are mentioned, and just about most of what I read was already in Translating The Lord of the Rings. Also, it's possible that WP:NOTDATABASE applies as pointed out by Sandstein. Industrial Insect (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Industrial Insect: I don't see this distinction between the process of translation and the translations it leads to. That seems to me like claiming the "Development" section we commonly have for works of fiction should be treated as a separate topic from the work it is about. Rather, I think the process of translation is a discussion of the translations it produces as a group.

@Industrial Insect and Sandstein: I also don't think that it is consensus that WP:NOTDATABASE excludes listings of bibliographical data in general, seeing that we e.g. have a specific guideline for how to create them in WP:MOS-BIBLIO. And if such listings are too large to conveniently fit into a parent topic, they are split out as a separate list. Notability is then no longer beside the point, as it can be used to decide which specific bibliographies to include, thus avoiding indiscriminately collecting data. All that said, I believe an additional commentary column could benefit the list, to provide more context. Analytical and review-like secondary sources exist for many translations and could be used there, beyond the broader concepts conveyed in the prose article. This list then also would become a place for what secondary sources have to say about individual translations, but which is not so much as to warrant a separate article for a specific translation. Daranios (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have been added to the various partial lists mentioned above. In addition, the two books on translating Tolkien by Thomas Honegger have been described and cited in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTDB; Wikipedia is not a repository for bibliographical data. The issue of notability is beside the point. The topic of LOTR translation is notable, of course, but that's why we have a prose article about that, Translating The Lord of the Rings. Sandstein 19:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings: where such a list is relevant, and doesn't need to be independently notable. Owen× ☎ 23:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The list was originally a part of the prose article Translating The Lord of the Rings and was separated out only recently. I would agree to merge or keep, but not "delete". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize that "delete" was ambiguous in my comment. If this is merged, then I assume that this separate article would cease to exist, but that the content would live on in the original article. My objection to "delete" is deleting the content without a merge. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into main article and Delete this undiscussed split. There is no reason for a separate article. // Timothy :: talk 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont see anything wrong with it. It doesn't fail WP:LIST nor WP:SIGCOV. It certainly needs work, but it's not bomb-grade. I'm not opposed to a merge as a second choice, which f soften my first choice for lists/POV forks. FWIW, I've read it in English, but I'm not a fanboy. Bearian (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Translating The Lord of the Rings. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not keep it is not notable, so keep is inappropriate. I am indifferent to deleting vs merging. (t · c) buidhe 01:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep, as a "short, complete list[] of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" of translations of The Lord of the Rings, meeting WP:CSC. Additionally, appropriate context and annotations can be added meeting WP:LISTPURP. Finally, while WP:MOS-BIBLIO doesn't outright say that bibliographies are notable, it implies that there is some consensus that bibliography pages are appropriate. I think a merge would just result in a WP:SPLIT discussion and there's no reason to delay the inevitable. Just realized I relisted this. Self-trout voorts (talk/contributions) 02:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ROTFL, but it's ROTLOTRFL. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian language in Romania[edit]

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

Not really about the Italian language in Romania. It’s mostly a coatrack about Italians in Romania and about the similarities between Romanian and Italian. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Italy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Italians in Romania per WP:ATD. Most of the article seems to be about Italians in Romania, with only a fraction about what the article should be about. Thus merge it and move the content actually about the the Romanian and Italian languages to a section of Italians in Romania or a section under Romanian or Italian. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and per Flemmish Nietzsche. Article is not mainly of its topic and has a lot of unsourced information. I don't think the topic is notable to justify its split from Italians in Romania, it's not like the language is very present in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of it, merge the rest. The sections on the languages should be kept. The various sections about other topics, like Italian Emigration to Romania, belong in the article for Italians in Romania. I can see an argument for merging the language sections with that article but I do think that the language elements are worthy of their own article. Lamona (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why is Italians in Romania a preferable redirect target over Languages of Romania? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian isn't listed there as a language used in Romania. I don't know why that is, but it seems to be based on something like census data. If Italian doesn't show in official statistics it probably shouldn't be addressed there. Lamona (talk) 14:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the latest census, there are 4105 native speakers of Italian in Romania. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because the use of a language in a country would intuitively be covered in the existing article for the minority speaking that language in the country. Super Ψ Dro 22:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of it, merge the rest. per Lamona. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:21, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Keep part of it, merge the rest"? I'm sorry but XFDcloser doesn't do this. If you vote "Keep", you can go ahead with a Merge on your own. But I can't close this as Keep and Merge, you have to pick one or the other outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles[edit]