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]

Exformation[edit]

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

A gestalt article on three different articles that define this word differently. No substantial independent coverage for any definition. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wellbeing Literacy[edit]

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

Promotional and created by an SPA account.

Insufficient sourcing independent of Lindsay Oades, a few other scholarly articles exist but none appear substantial enough to re-write this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Health and fitness, and Psychology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating this page for deletion, as there was no input from any third party last time (closed as "no consensus").

Motivation from last time still holds:

Fails WP:GNG
See my first entry on the article's talk page here.
The article mostly gives examples of Syriac language used in Lebanon. The intended topic of the article is an Aramaic language (probably Western) spoken in Lebanon in earlier times.
From my knowledge, this language/dialect is not documented, thus not discussed in Aramaic studies.
Few to none WP:RS discusses this "Lebanese Aramaic" or "Lebanese Syriac" or "Surien" language. Content much based on this article, not a WP:RS. Shmayo (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As already stated in the previous nomination an article about a language is notable. The article discusses both the vernacular Aramaic and classical Syriac as the two are tightly connected and furthermore the term Syriac was used at time to refer to Aramaic. Wikipedia does not care about what you do or do not believe from your own knowledge (WP:VERIFYOR) but relies on reliable sources which are already provided in the page. Even if Iskander’s source is contestable Bawardi and Wardini both use the term “Lebanese Aramaic” which you have conveniently left out. I already stated in the previous nomination you are free to edit the page, as everyone is, but you seem to have ignored this as you did my counters to your same points in the previous nomination which makes it seem like you are nominating this based on WP:WINNING rather than anything else. Regardless, I have amended the page to help distinct between the colloquial Aramaic and classical Syriac as that seems to be where part of the confusion is coming from. Red Phoenician (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to accuse me of anything. There was no third-party opinion last time, which is what I am seeking here. To me, there is no "significant coverage" on this topic, thus no need for a separate Lebanese Aramaic article. Western Aramaic was obviously spoken in Lebanon, and Syriac is a part of the Maronite church - but a separate article, heavly based on that Iskander article and some WP:OR (and plenty information solely on Syriac)... I do not see how this is notable with one reference to "Lebanese Aramaic" in Bawardi's book and another one in a project description by Wardini. Let's hope his research will give us some more insight in time. This is not comparable with e.g. CPA, which is actually discussed in Aramaic studies. Shmayo (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was the third-party opinion of user Maclearie so that is false. Again, this is a contradiction of “the topic has no sources except for the sources which explicitly mention it but let us just deem them irrelevant.” Not sure where the accusation of me adding original research comes from as I have cited all of the information I added but I would like to see a supposed example of such. Red Phoenician (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party as in someone not highly active in this topic (i.e. Lebanon). I have not stated anything about you, this is not about you, but the article. Why would "Syriac alphabet" be listed under writing system? For example. Shmayo (talk) 07:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it is seen as bad if a user is more knowledgeable about said topic but you are right I made an error with the writing system and have corrected it. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wuteh Vakunta[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. I can't find a Google Scholar for him; ResearchGate indicates he's only been cited 22 times (which seems too low to meet WP:NPROF). A search for sources only turns up profiles for him and sites hawking his books. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Language, Poetry, and Cameroon. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Although he does not seem to satisfy WP:NPROF, subject may possibly satisfy WP:AUTHOR (C3). I do see a few reviews of published works; not sure if there is enough, though. Qflib (talk) 00:16, 14 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!} 22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
I think the word is notable in its own right given the tango and the discussion of its length in reliable German language sources, but given there's another merge suggested to a different page, I think a merge to the company makes more sense if that is the chosen deletion alternative. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 15 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]
- This title is a redirect in the German Wikipedia, not an article of its own; de:Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft redirects to the somewhat shorter de:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Delete per nom Okmrman (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)~~ Striking user banned for this behavior (User_talk:Okmrman#Please_stop). Reywas92^Talk 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether it actually existed or not, reliable sources have long reported it and it has gone down in legend as one of the longest words in history. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a particularly good reason to keep the article though -- "gone down in legend"? Really? Come gather 'round, kids, while I tell you the story of the great Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft. How do sources "report" a word? None of what you're saying makes any reasonable sense. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to German nouns § Compounds, where a brief mention might be appropriate. You might even be able to justify a standalone article on long German words, with this example certainly worth mentioning, but WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOPAGE pretty strongly favor not having a standalone article here. There's simply nothing to say about the word itself other than "it's long". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, just one of many made-up extensions of that word. There are no reliable sources, unlike for the Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which used to be a real law. —Kusma (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this does not appear to have been an actual organization, but rather a name contrived to be an example of an unusually long German word. However, if this name is mentioned in some other article here on the English Wikipedia such as German nouns#Compounds, it can be redirected to that article. Do not redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft, the actual shipping company with which this supposed organization would have been affiliated if it had actually existed, because people who look up this word (if anybody does) are probably interested in it as a word. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already also covered there, though. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a made-up word, existing purely as an exceptionally long curiosity, of dictionary value at best (if it even belongs there). It has no place in an encyclopedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kusma if there is sourcing. The Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft has (unsourced) claims of other silly long words derived from its name. But: is there sourcing this ever was a word, other than the Guinness Book of World Records and user-generated content like H2G2? Walsh90210 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without proven sourcing, deletion is the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should clarify. My question was on sourcing of The name of the company is well known in German-speaking countries as a starter to humorously construct even longer compound words. Even if this specific word was made-up for the Guinness Book of World Records (which seems plausible), I would support a redirect if there is other sourcing for that statement. It is hard to tell from an English-language Google search whether there is anything other than "people quoting Wikipedia" there. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have to search in German, as that's where it's a novelty. It might not qualify for WP:GNG in English, but if you set your compass for German there's coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In German it is basically a children's game to construct long extensions of Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Most made-up extensions are more convincing than this one (no educated native German speaker would use "-elektrizitäten-" instead of the correct "-elektrizitäts-" in this context) so I guess that is why this particular choice of made-up extension is more notable in English (albeit not very notable) than in German. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets GNG if you read the German article. Other long compounds of the same origin, such as Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsanwärterposten, can be redirected to this article. Jonashtand (talk) 06:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The German Wikipedia doesn't have an article by this name. de:Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft is a redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect, probably to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. The Guinness source used on the German Wikipedia is sufficient for verifiability, but not notability. I suggest that the content of this article can be summarised into a single short paragraph in the target article. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least support Merge & Redirect to Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft. Theoretical word, mostly a joke. German WP includes mention of it as an artificial creation:
Das Wort ist ein beliebtes Beispiel für komplexe Mehrfachkomposita und deren Probleme im Bereich der Linguistik und Computerlinguistik in Thesauren, Übersetzungsprogrammen und Suchabfragen. In Österreich, wo die Gesellschaft beheimatet war, ist es wahrscheinlich das Paradebeispiel. Es wird gerne als Ausgangspunkt für Wortspielereien wie die Ableitung noch längerer künstlich zusammengesetzter – aber grammatikalisch korrekter – Hauptwörter wie

Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsanwärterposten
Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänskajütenschlüsselloch
Donaudampfschifffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft
Oberdonaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänsmützenkokarde

und ähnlichem genutzt. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:49, 26 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]
I am not sure how turning it into a disambig would work since the only other pages containing the word are Fáilte Ireland and Fáilte Towers. This may be an example of partial title match, but I am not sure if people simply refer it to 'Fáilte'. JuniperChill (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair cop. I won't be too sad if the page is deleted. Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 15 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!} 16:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On balance, I think it is difficult to justify this as an article as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fáilte Ireland: that article gets more page views than Fáilte Towers. After redirecting, add a {{redirect}} hatnote targeting the TV series. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. The existence of a redirect would inhibit searching, and a DAB is no good since there's nothing but PTMs here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT), and this is English Wikipedia, not Irish – this is especially not a translating dictionary, nor a dictionary of all the world's languages. The greeting makes no sense as a redirect, either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles[edit]