Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Toweli (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 2 August 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Herra (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Language

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 Lord#Non-English equivalents. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Herra

Herra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. No sources, and in the Finnish version the source only references the abbreviation. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I searched online, I didn't see that much info about, it, or were just mentioned. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 17:46, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Epiglottal ejective stop

Epiglottal ejective stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose this be deleted because of the citations, and failed verification. BodhiHarp (talk) 20:07, 1 August 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.
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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of most translated individual authors

List of most translated individual authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it stands, this article is just a copy of an outdated UNESCO tool. It's encyclopedic value is highly questionable. A talk page user discussed how even the tool itself is difficult to fully quantify due to it 1) not including all translations, and 2) different printings of the same translation being counted as separate entries. As such, it would be nigh impossible to truly elevate this article to something that provides up-to-date information in a concise, helpful way. I'm proposing deletion. TNstingray (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, and Literature. Skynxnex (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The list is so out of date that it's not really pertinent. The most recent country update is from 2010. Some countries only supplied data through the 1980s or 1990s! Even the US is only as up to date as 2008. We could probably update the list if we had a good, reliable source for this, but that poses a couple of issues. First is that we'd have to make sure that there was no bias and that they were compiling the data through a reliable way. Then the issue is keeping such a list up to date, as a lot of outlets just reply on this as an "isn't this interesting" type of story. We could refocus this article as just the UNESCO tool, but then it's not a matter of showing notability for the topic area but for the specific UNESCO list.
Offhand I'm leaning towards delete, but I do want to search first. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:59, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely notable but impossible to have in a way that is accurate and encyclopedic. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like the UNESCO database has an article (Index Translationum), although it definitely needs work as far as sourcing and so on goes (it could also benefit from a note mentioning how up to date the lists are). I would say to redirect this there, except that this title is extremely generic and doesn't reflect on the fact that it's the most translated according to UNESCO (and an outdated database at that). I would recommend creating a redirect such as "Most translated authors according to Index Translationum". It's a bit clunky, but does get the point across and if anyone was looking for this article, they could redirect to the main article. To that end, I don't think that the article needs anything more than the top 10. I'm fine with no redirect as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:32, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect I see no way to turn this into a reliable verifiable article. The database itself is notable. While it is not up to date either, it makes no pretense as such. The Index Translationum document rather than the list is the topic. It could be an WP:ATD target. Archrogue (talk) 18:10, 4 August 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.
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 Proto-Germanic language. If editors wish to Merge selected article content, they are free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic parent language

Germanic parent language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I contemplated making a merge proposal for this article instead of a deletion request, but honestly I don't see much of a reason to keep this page as a redirect. A lot of this term's notability (which it already has little of) stems from the fact that this term has a Wikipedia article and not from its actual usage in academics. It would've never crossed anyone's mind to make a redirect page to Proto-Germanic language using this term had this article never been made in the first place. This is not a notable term; its use in academics is negligible and is almost completely confined to works by Frans Van Coetsem or works that directly involved him, and its use outside of academics is almost entirely in relation to this Wikipedia article and not in relation to the actual academics it originates from. Wikipedia should only document notable terms and not be what makes a term notable. This term was not made into a Wikipedia article because it was notable, but rather it is notable because it was made into a Wikipedia article. While talented Wikipedians have contributed to this article, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I recommend a read of the talk page of Germanic parent language to understand why this article should be deleted, as editors there articulate why this page shouldn't exist far better than I'm able to do in this deletion nomination. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. If a user were to encounter this term elsewhere and come here for further information, this would be a great resource. It's unclear how likely that is, given the seemingly limited breadth of the scholarship. Comparative page views, if we're allowed to consider them.
  2. The page is referenced several times from Proto-Germanic language, which itself draws this distinction as a phase between PIE and PG. Because this area of scholarship isn't cut and dry
If retained, I think the main improvements would be to simplify some of the complex sentences to make it more accessible and to shift away from 'according to X' sentence structures, unless it's articulating a specific point of contention among scholars.
I think a merge and edit down of the content could be beneficial as well, as this is very detailed for the more widely documented PG. Mad Jim Bey talk 23:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mad Jim Bey: The term being referenced several times in Proto-Germanic language is one of the reasons it should be deleted. Those references are of undue weight and were added in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage and importance of the term. The existence of this article affects other articles by promoting the term to be used in other articles despite its lack of notability in the academics Wikipedia is supposed to be recording. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Treetoes023 I've been convinced. I dug into the listed sources in the reference material and searched through whatever I could access. Almost none of them actually refer to 'German parent language', but consistently to 'Proto-Germanic'. Those sources generally don't even reference the other mentioned source authors. It appears to be a limit ~4 academics who use this term, so I'm pro-delete (and redirect). Mad Jim Bey talk 01:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mad Jim Bey: The same thing happened to me when I first came across the article in May 2024; the article had completely convinced me of the term's notability and I even made some copy edits on the article. I only realized after recent reexamination that the article had tricked me into believing the term had a far bigger part in Germanic linguistics than it actually did and that's what got me to nominate it for deletion. Who knows if it's fooled other people the same way and possibly caused them to perpetuate it? – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I'm not sure how the article has been on Wikipedia so long - there's no basis in the sources for a specific "Germanic Parent Language" that is different from Proto-Germanic. However, the term does occur occasionally in the literature meaning Proto-Germanic, and so I think a redirect is a better solution than outright deletion.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've been arguing the pointlessness of this article for a long time. In principle, Ermenrich is right that, since the term does occur, a redirect might be more appropriate than deletion. But in practice anyone who comes across this term in the very limited selection of the specialist literature where it's used will recognize it simply as anything an occasional alternative to Proto-Germanic. There is already a redirect from Parent language to Proto-language, which seems to me to cover that issue entirely adequately anyway.--Pfold (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Proto-Germanic per NOTDICT and CFORK. This topic is covered by the Proto-Germanic article, including the Pre-Proto-Germanic section. Kanguole 08:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Merge per nomOphyrius (he/him
    T • C • G    ) 10:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, IIRC, the author wanted an article for the stage between P-IE and Grimm's law. There was obviously a Bronze Age Pre-Proto-Germanic language phase that followed P-IE and preceded the Proto-Germanic of the Iron Age.--Berig (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment: I'm with Berig. At least some of the information is useful and sourced. Should it be draftified or merged? Do we have to throw out the baby with the bath water? Bearian (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, the problem is that the only information that's sourced there actually using the title and concept of the article is by a single scholar, van Coetsem. The other citations do not agree with him or support his conclusions, so it's really a case of WP:SYNTH to create the impression that this is a real concept in the scholarly literature. I think Pfold, who's more of a linguist than I am, can confirm.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that the source citations I tried to follow up did not inspire confidence in those I didn't. Of course, some of the sources themselves might turn out to be useful in seeking to improve the Pre-Proto-Germanic section in Proto-Germanic, but best to evaluate them from scratch, I would say, without the obvious bias and inaccuracy of this article. --Pfold (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, lots of interesting opinions but I don't need to know about the subject, I need to know what y'all want to happen and why. I'm relisting so that a consensus can become clearer and also say that you shouldn't suggest Proto-Germanic as a Redierct/Merge target article because it's a redirect and not an article at all. Always double-check your suggestions before proposing them as this seems to happen here a lot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 6 August 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.
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. Salvio giuliano 20:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silent commerce

AfDs for this article:
Silent commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I suspect someone coined this term but it never caught on Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 30 July 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.
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. ✗plicit 11:40, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabets of the South Caucasus

Alphabets of the South Caucasus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to me to be WP:SYNTH, creating a novel topic by bringing together sources that are reliable in the statements they support to establish a broader narrative that they do not support. Mccapra (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, article is a combination of information about different scripts joined together by an original research concept. SDGB1217 (talk) 23:27, 30 July 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.
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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Tiwari

Anuj Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A promotional article for a non-notable author and businessman. Sources are mostly primary, poor and unreliable. Fails Wp:SIGCOV, Wp:RS, Wp:NAUTHOR and Wp:NBUSINESSPERSON.

Article creator is a Wp:SPA with possible COI indicated by their username. Zuck28 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 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.
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 no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 19:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Belarusian places in other languages

Names of Belarusian places in other languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Belarus. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Are there any good ATDs for this? You are right that it isn't very encyclopedic, but it is a great index that I would love to be kept in some form. Is there another Wikimedia project that it would fit better on? I would like it to continue to exist, even though this isn't the right place for it. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you use this table and how know the quality is "great" when there are no sources? Is that because you checked a sample by flipping round language links? Perhaps a Belarussian reading this would like to translate it to Belarussian Wikipedia? However I don’t know their rules. Another alternative if you need it in bulk might be to make a Wikidata query. Or could AI nowadays flip round the language links on your request? Or are you saying it is useful to you because some articles don't exist in other languages? In which case without sources how can you trust the info? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have come to realize that the Yiddish translations are maybe a bit rougher than I thought. I was going to manually update Wikidata items, but I've decided against it due to the lack of citations. Sorry to bother you. Ike Lek (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - alternative toponyms are of encyclopaedic value imo (esp historical and relevant current ones), and all but one name in this list is linked, so list looks like WP:LISTPURP-NAV to me. Would be nice if sources were added, or maybe even notes on names to provide further encyclopaedic context :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:12, 5 August 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.
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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian exonyms in Istria

List of Italian exonyms in Istria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TadejM says it is notable but with only one cite on the Italian article I am not sure Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Istria has a sizable Italian population. These names are used in the areas with the Italian minority and are commonly mentioned in their media. The Italian Wikipedia provides several citations for them. --TadejM my talk 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Italian Wikipedia has more than one citation. I think you may have missed them as they as separate from the "Bibliografia" section. Because of both the history of Italians in Istria, and the current modern significance of the names, Italian exonyms for places in Istria is a notable topic, and a list is not inappropriate. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT. There are some exonym articles that are encyclopedic, such as Chinese exonyms, but that article contains well-sourced contextual information and mostly restricts the list to exonyms that have received secondary coverage. The Italian version of this article appears to rely mainly on primary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited. (emphasis mine) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even with secondary sources, there's still a WP:NOTDICT argument against having exhaustive lists of exonyms. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting this; a list of toponyms seems less crazy than I originally thought, assuming that sources exist, even though it would be quite large. It could be eventually merged into one or more general lists such as List of locations in Istria County. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Coming back to this, I find myself reconsidering whether these names are truly exonyms at all, as many have official status and are used locally by ethnic Italians. If the page isn't even about true exonyms, this changes things significantly. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are actually endonyms.[1] --TadejM my talk 11:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the same is true for the region of Dalmatia and a similar article (List of Italian exonyms in Dalmatia) was recently deleted by PROD. IF the outcome of this AfD is anything other than delete, then the same should apply to that list. Giuliotf (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pages 74 and 75 of this may be of note here [2]. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting given concerns raised by Ike Lek
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The place was Italian until 1947, so it would make sense to have a list. But this is basically unsourced and appears to list every place in the ___location, from A-Z. So a whole bunch of places had Italian names, in a place that was Italian until around 75 years ago... I don't see the need for this, seems redundant. Oaktree b (talk) 15:18, 30 July 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.
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 no consensus‎. asilvering (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms

Czech exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

When I language link through to the first entry Albánský Bělehrad it seems to be historical rather than a current exonym. I cannot find the article info in the cite. Also I don’t think this is notable. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 23:07, 27 July 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.

Prodded articles

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1303904364"