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

Layer 8

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

If I understand the topic correctly, Layer 8 is a humorous term used to refer to the user. But the article is not about users; it is about Layer 8 as a word. And I don't consider that word notable under WP:GNG. What is more important: usage of a word isn't coverage of the word. Mere usage doesn't constitute SIGCOV. Janhrach (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Internet. Janhrach (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Layer 8 is pretty widely used in networking to refer to the user or the political layer. ie. a layer above the technical stack, which is subject to exploits (see Social_engineering_(security)), user error (sometimes humourously, but often not), and which is a real factor in network operation. The article could use some better sources and editing, but this is notable, which it why it's on my watchlist. Gladrim (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese abbreviated and contracted words

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

Unsourced since 2005. This feels more like a grammar/foreign language textbook rather than encyclopedia entry, and I'm not sure that it truly is intelligible to people with no familiarity with Japanese and reading Japanese characters. Possibly fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but more broadly I think this fails WP:NOTGUIDE as it it seems to be doing the work of a language instructional manual.4meter4 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article could do with some cleanup, but this is well covered in linguistics research (e.g. [1] [2] [3]) and TNT would be overkill. I'm not sure how an article on a linguistic feature in Japanese is supposed to both be intelligible to someone with no familiarity with the language, while also avoiding "doing the work of a language instructional manual". Keep. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point that this type of content is not in our scope. We are not a how to speak/read Japanese guide or a guide to Japanese grammar.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think this rises to the level of a how-to guide (and one that cannot be addressed without TNT) you must be reading a different article. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add references. As a list of abbreviations this would fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but as an analysis of a linguistic phenomenon it is notable and encyclopedic. The article does not appear to be instructional to any great degree, and it is standard for articles on linguistics to contain examples. Dekimasuよ! 09:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu: Not that this really matters in the context of your vote, but that is a WP:MISUSEOFINDISCRIMINATE. This article doesn't fit any one of the four specific criteria nor the general criteria at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The general criteria is specific to data and this article is not data driven. Please re-read that policy if you haven't read it in a while. Editors need to stop and think before citing that policy as it is very specific to only these circumstances: data or RAWDATA (which this isn't), summary-only descriptions of works (which this also isn't), lyrics database (which this also isn't), and exhaustive logs of software updates (which this isn't). In short, INDISCRIMINATE is not applicable to this article's content. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That clearly is not an exhaustive list, see MOS:TRIVIA's lead section for example. It would not be possible to list the infinite number of ways to collect data indiscriminately on Wikipedia, and the community's interpretation of the policy reflects this. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The policy as formed at the community discussion was specifically addressing raw data. The guideline language is clearly focused, and it doesn't leave room for an open-ended application in the way that you suggest. This policy is often mis-cited at AFD because editors assume indiscriminate applies to fancruft content, but in most cases that policy isn’t relevant at all to fancruft issues. We don’t add opinions into guidelines, we actually follow and apply the guideline as written.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, it is neither here nor there (and WP:NOT is a policy, not a guideline), but the root difference between the interpretations seems to be what constitutes "data". WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Absent contextualization, a collection of data is indiscriminate whether it is numerical or lexical. Other parts of the same section point directly to WP:NLIST; that specifically notes that the topic must be covered in independent sources as a "group or set", which was the crux of my comment. Best, Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undoubtedly the language at NLIST is relevant; although I wouldn't call this page a list article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Dekimasu. Undoubtedly the article needs work but it's also notable and encyclopedic. Gommeh 📖 🎮 18:50, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Added a few very basic sources myself but this meets WP:GNG and/or wp: NLIST as having received coverage as a set. Everyone remotely familiar with the Japanese language or Japan understands this is an important societal and linguistic phenomenon.--~2025-38537-34 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dekimasu and others. I am persuaded that this has enough for the subject to meet WP:GNG. Iljhgtn (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was delete. No P&G-based arguments for retention. Owen× ☎ 09:04, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean Tatar (Romania) Language Corpus

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

No independent sources attest notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 10:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Biruitorul What kind of sources you mean? It just describes about the projects in the website, visit the website (or GitHub) and see them? Zolgoyo (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The language itself has a degree of "definitely endangered" by UNESCO (see the source given in the article, or in the article "Crimean Tatar language"), and this is enough reference for the importance of such kind of project. Zolgoyo (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is established by “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject”, not by subjective opinions regarding the importance of a pet project. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:34, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please be respectful. There are enough (different) studies indicating that Crimean Tatar (also in Romania) is endangered. It's not a "subjective opinion", it's scientifically proven. Zolgoyo (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having a Wikipedia article for the Language Corpus for Crimean Tatar spoken in Romania is important for several reasons, primarily due to its role in language preservation, academic research, and cultural recognition. This corpus represents a vital resource for documenting and studying a critically endangered Turkic language, which faces significant threats of extinction. The article would highlight the linguistic distinctiveness of Dobrujan Tatar, differentiating it from other Turkic languages and dialects, and emphasize its unique historical and cultural context within Romania. It would serve as a central point of reference for researchers, linguists, and the broader public interested in Turkic studies, minority languages, and computational linguistics, promoting further academic inquiry and the development of language technologies. Furthermore, a Wikipedia presence can raise global awareness about the language's precarious status, potentially attracting support for revitalization efforts and empowering the Dobrujan Tatar community in their cultural and linguistic heritage preservation.

Zolgoyo (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Just demonstrate the existence of “significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject” regarding this topic, and we can close the discussion. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is about a Github project that has one star and was created in September. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:07, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I object, the argument you give is not a reason to delete the article. Because the aspects I have mentioned make this argument irrelevant.
Zolgoyo (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the "Translator (Beta)" section is 100% AI-written. Bearian (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I veto the argument — The stated argument for deleting the article is not true. The incorrect spelling, sentence structure, or similar issues are due to my difficulties with English.
Zolgoyo (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please check WP:AFDEQ. Deletion discussions operate through consensus, not fanciful adoption of non- existent veto power. Biruitorul ^Talk 10:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There appears to be approximately zero independent coverage of this project. If I were a gambling man, I'd wager that the article author is also the maintainer of the project (or at least connected to it), but I don't know this for sure of course. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Multiword expression

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

I previously redirected this page to Idiom, as I could not see any differences between the two topics. Someone reverted that and tried to add information, but I am still convinced that this page should just redirect to Idiom. Angryapathy (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a very quick search reveals several sources that make clear idioms are a subset of MWEs, not synonymous with them (e.g. The scope of the label ‘MWE’ is broad, and includes such phenomena as periphrases, nominal compounds, phrasal verbs, and idioms (Baldwin & Kim 2010). These each raise their own analytical problems...; We assume a broad concept of MWE in this volume, using MWE as the cover term for any kind of phraseological unit. As such, it comprises idioms, collocations, complex names, phraseological patterns, etc. It's clear that the MWE article needs expansion and improvement, but that's not a reason to merge it into one of its subcategories. ZenSwashbuckler 17:56, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't agree with Zen that we need a verbose equivalent to idiom. Athel cb (talk) 18:01, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zen makes it exceedingly clear that it is not an equivalent. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my unmerge, I stated: "unmerge: MWE is distinct from Idiom in that MWE can have transparent compositional meaning; see Wikidata for sourcing". A link: Wikidata: Q6935164, which references https://neon.niederlandistik.fu-berlin.de/static/mh/Huening_Schluecker_2015_ms.pdf. Can someone refute the idea that a MWE can have transparent compositional meaning? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Dialectology, Onomastics and Folklore Research in Umeå

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

Unsourced since 2004. Swedish wiki page also has zero references. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Sweden. 4meter4 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding the Swedish page you mention? It seems that sv:Dialekt-, ortnamns- och folkminnesarkivet i Umeå is a redirect to Swedish Institute for Language and Folklore; something that could be done here with success. --//Replayful (talk | contribs) 13:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swedish Institute for Language and Folklore. I found a few sources about DAUM when it was closing in 2014, but that probably isn't enough to establish notability by itself. --EdTre (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because the name seems arbitrary, seeing as it was an archive (visible from its Swedish name), why would it be called an institute? This and these call it a department. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Honestly, the title is not one of an encyclopedia, rather a subpage of an article or even sub-subpage. r f q i i ^talk! 07:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also fails WP:INLINE
r f q i i ^talk! 07:30, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.‎

The result was redirect to Michael Fortescue. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chukotko-Kamchatkan–Amuric languages

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

Hypothesis without any traction advocated by a single person. Stockhausenfan (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the theory is mentioned within multiple reliable sources, and Fortesque is a well respected linguist within the field of Arctic languages. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michael Fortescue. A proposal without sufficient evidence, even from a well-respected scholar, is still just a proposal. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uralo-Siberian languages, which recently closed as 'merge'. Cnilep (talk) 04:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Fortescue. The article contains no in-depth analysis of the theory, but this is exactly what we need to establish whether it is notable. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Fortescue. I'm not finding coverage of the theory substantial enough to warrant its own article, might as well be a paragraph Michael Fortescue until more people engage with the theory in a substantial manner. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Contents

Language

Layer 8

Japanese abbreviated and contracted words

Crimean Tatar (Romania) Language Corpus

Multiword expression

Institute for Dialectology, Onomastics and Folklore Research in Umeå

Chukotko-Kamchatkan–Amuric languages

Prodded articles

Redirects for Discussion