Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AnomieBOT (talk | contribs) at 09:15, 13 August 2025 (Archiving closed XfDs (errors?): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Matters). 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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of placeholder names

List of placeholder names (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)

Fails WP:NLIST and WP:No original research. See the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Placeholder name. There are no sources which define the term "placeholder name". It's a WP:Neologism. As such this fails NLIST because the term itself is not discussed as a group or a set in reliable sources.4meter4 (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On further examination, I don't think that policy requires us to resort to wordier constructions. Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive title states: "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles". BD2412 T 21:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:HEY, as sources to back the collective stand-alone list have been added. I am fine with changing the name as suggested by BD2412. Another potential variation would be "List of names used as placeholders by language". Rublamb (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Policies like WP:OR exist to make Wikipedia better. They should not be applied blindly, just for the sake of following rules. Maybe the term "placeholder names" is rarely used, but it's the most obvious term for these names. Borrowing an idea from copyright law, I'd say its threshold of originality is extremely low. Changing it to "names used as placeholders" would not improve Wikipedia in any way. Rather the contrary. We'd change a short, simple and clear title, just because it may not 100% obey certain rules. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:29, 11 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. Salvio giuliano 08:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder name

Placeholder name (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:TNT and WP:No original research. The article is built entirely from WP:Original synthesis. None of the sources from what I can tell define the term or directly discuss the concept of placeholder names. There currently isn't a clearly defined concept because the article is not built from materials that define or directly discuss the term. There probably is a possible article on this topic but it would require a complete rewrite. Best to blow this up and start over. 4meter4 (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Prior to nominating this AfD, this user removed over 10,000 bytes of information (or 60% of the article) in 21 minutes, only linking to WP:BURDEN for their reasoning. This is how the article looked prior to their edits.
The reverting policy states: (emphasis mine)

When tagging or removing material, please communicate your reasons why. Some editors object to others making frequent and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere [...] For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified.

This user has:
  • not communicated their reasons for deleting the content in any of their edit summaries, apart from linking to WP:BURDEN;
  • in my opinion, not made enough effort to improve the material or checked if the content is sourced elsewhere. Some of the removed content was linking to another article about the subject. For this reason, I think it is likely this user didn't "check whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere", such as the article it linked to. (Just as an example, Acme Corporation was linked to the article and had more than 20 citations, but its mention was removed altogether per WP:BURDEN).
  • not communicated why the material in question cannot be verified, even after being asked to in the talk page of the page in question.
I thought this context was relevant to this discussion. FaviFake (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear. I removed lots of unsourced claims citing WP:BURDEN. FaviFake seems to be of the mistaken opinion that linking to another wikipedia page is a form of verifying, but that is not the case because: A)Wikipedia cannot cite itself B) The articles in question are not necessarily cited properly. C) Even if they are, it isn't at all clear that the examples being used are indeed "placeholder names" because the term is again not defined well, and the sources being used don't discuss the term. To use the Acme Corporation article as an example, it's not at all clear to me that a fictional company in a cartoon is indeed a "placeholder name". I don't think it is.4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
<giggle-giggle> Do YOU know what is "placeholder name"? Reminds me the history with Stanislaw Lem and Sepulka; see this article in paragraph starting with "In a 2009 interview". --Altenmann >talk 00:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken; I do not believe that linking to another Wikipedia page is a form of verifying. To answer your objections:
A) I only said that I believe it is likely that enough efforts to improve the material or check if the content is sourced elsewhere (such as another Wikipedia article) haven't been made.
B and C) Many of them are "cited properly". Besides, it is unclear which ones were checked, and the fact that this is the specific reason they were removed wasn't explained. FaviFake (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but I don't think the Loony Tunes Acme corporation was being used in the function of a placeholder name. It engages with too much parody and social commentary across a long term series of running gags. There's too much intent there. I also don't see it being discussed in that fashion within the article or its sources.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Acme corporation is an example. Besides, it didn'r originate with Looney Tunes; it "began being depicted in film starting in the silent era, such as the 1920 Neighbors with Buster Keaton and the 1922 Grandma's Boy with Harold Lloyd, continuing with TV series, such as in early episodes of I Love Lucy and The Andy Griffith Show"
While I'm sure some of the content was truly unsourced and should have been removed, I don't think 21 minutes is enough to make sure that 60% of the article cannot be backed by any source in the articles linked. And it certainly wasn't enough to explain the removals, it appears. FaviFake (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making false accusations. You keep repeating that I didn't explain the removals but I did in every edit summary. The reasoning hasn't changed or altered. You might not like the reasoning, but the reasoning was clearly articulated and is based in wikipedia policy.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every edit summary was a variation of: "removing unsourced section; please do not restore until reliable sources are added per WP:BURDEN".
There is literally no reason given. None. The only policy you link to states that you are strongly advised to communicate the reasoning behind your actions, attempt to find a citation somewhere else before removing it, and explain why you think the content cannot be verified, and you have done none of these. You can keep gaslighting yourself all you want. FaviFake (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above on you not liking/accepting the reason given. In short: the reason to remove was it was unsourced/not verifiable. That's valid per WP:BURDEN/WP:Verifiability. If you want to keep the content add a source.4meter4 (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • TNT. (withddrawn) With fascination I was lookin thru the article history observing enthusiastic Wikipedians day by day doing unadulterated original research. It was understandable in them good old days of wikipedia when all wikipedia was original research. People honestly thought that they are onto something, but obviously there was not a single linguist to enlighten them. Russian wikipedians, invented their own $20 word: Экземплификант "exemplificant" for thiangamajigs, but they were not so enthusiastic. I made a quick searc for sourcces, but founnd nothhing usable. We REALLY must consult linguists (language log?) who can tell moron from oxymoron. --Altenmann >talk 00:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC) Clarification: just as "oxymoron" is not "ox"+"moron", "placeholder name" may or may not be placeholder+name. --Altenmann >talk 00:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning keep or merge into Placeholder and improve. This is a fascinating discussion, as "placeholder name" seems intuitively correct, but I can find literally no decently published literature on this. However, it is absolutely undeniable that terms like "John Doe" and "Tommy Atkins" and "Blackacre" and "Joe's Diner" exist, and serve a common conceptual purpose. Perhaps what we are actually missing is a formal linguistic designation for such terms, by which I mean, perhaps there is something that they are properly called, but we need an expert to tell us what that term is. BD2412 T 00:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I can't even find a source that defines the term. It's not in a dictionary. Fundamentally we can't keep an article we can't verifiably define. As a concept it makes sense, but as a term we may have arrived at a WP:Neologism.4meter4 (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest instance I can find is this 1996 news article noting that political parties put placeholder names (albeit names of actual people) on the ballot while waiting for a candidate to be selected. BD2412 T 01:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; they were using "placeholder" names, not placeholder names. And we do not even know what was that, besidees "...they hoped to switch out later" Anyway, it is fun doing original reserch, ist'n it? :-) --Altenmann >talk 01:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Altenmann: "Placeholder name" would be WP:NATURALDIS to Placeholder; obviously these are placeholders, but since that is a disambiguation page, they need to be placeholder somethings, and the somethings in this case are names. BD2412 T 01:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, are you saying that we do not even have a decent articlle [[[placeholder]]? Good thing I wrote the article "Line stander" at least :-) --Altenmann >talk 01:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have an article on Placeholder at all. This might be a WP:DABCONCEPT case. BD2412 T 01:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Duckmather tagged this as WP:DABCONCEPT case well over a year ago, good call. BD2412 T 02:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. It might be appropriate to merge this to placeholder because defining "placeholder" would be possible. There are many dictionaries with the term.4meter4 (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: I think this is exactly the right direction. Here is a fun article from the journal Open Linguistics proposing that expletives are functionally placeholder terms. BD2412 T 03:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 I formally changed my vote to merge per our discussion below. You might consider modifying your vote as well for WP:CONSENSUS purposes. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding numerous examples of "placeholder name" from the 1990s that relate to computer programming. Maybe someone with an old-school programming background can provide more info (its before my time), but it appears that "Placeholder name" was used in coding. Placeholder names were and continue to be important to testing software and databases. Very quickly, the terms shows up in medical and scientific scholarly journals where "placeholder names" were used for unnamed bacteria and viruses. They also were used for patients mentioned in the articles. Next, I am finding it in other types of scholarly research, often relating to the analysis of literature and writing. The other, independent, place I find the term is in the publishing and printing business where a "placeholder name" was inserted in the pre-typeset article so that the newspaper to go to press as soon as a "winner" or whatever name was determined. Note this is in reference to typesetting with newspapers, so the term does go back a ways. Not saying that makes it article worthy; just noting an interesting history. Rublamb (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is much more on point, but is from 2022, which raises the specter that the author learned about it from Wikipedia in the first place. Also, the headline fails to use the Oxford comma, so how literate can they possibly be? BD2412 T 01:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also an on-point usage of the term, but this would constitute a passing mention. BD2412 T 01:48, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a "syndicated humor columnist" is hardly a source of linguistic wisdom. --Altenmann >talk 01:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something is better than nothing, and this is start. However, I still don't see this limited sourcing surpassing WP:NEO. We need some sort of academic engagement with the term, and not something limited to a single newspaper columnist who isn't a linguist.4meter4 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No we cannot use this "limiterd sourcing", the text is clearly snatched from Wikipedia. A humor columnist talking about "metasytntactic variables" is hilarious. --Altenmann >talk 02:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note that this this source discussing use of this class of names in the military refers to them as "generic names", although "generic" opens up a different kettle of worms. BD2412 T 17:34, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus did you mean redirect to placeholder?4meter4 (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, since it's all so generic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There doesn't appear to be an issue with that list. It would be a stable list for a merge target.4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest separate AfDs for these. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - placeholder name is WP:NATURALDAB for a type of placeholder and I don't think anyone is credibly arguing for Placeholder to be deleted. Similarly, I don't think anyone is credibly arguing for deletion John Doe or Acme Corporation and I don't see the foul in covering the general placeholder (name) concept that ties them. As for the state of the article, I don't see how starting over will put us on better footing than we have now. A bunch of recent work has been put into cleanup. There are more suggestions in this discussion. I don't see why we can't take that further. ~Kvng (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: via WP:HEY. I quickly found several sources that discuss placeholder names, thus removing any concerns that this is an artificial construct from original research. Given the likely hood of more source existing in textbooks and reference books, this article can continued to be expanded and improved. Rublamb (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all pretty clearly based on our article. One of the sources you cited was already dismissed as such. This was discussed above. The one scholarly source added is about “placeholder” for names. Not placeholder names. There is a difference. These do not support keeping because the sourcing you added is likely WP:CIRCULAR.4meter4 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to think that this is not really a deletion discussion, but a titling discussion. BD2412 T 18:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be fine with that. Rublamb (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The scholarly source from Cambridge University Press does use the phrase "placeholder names", as on p. 364, documenting that this phrasing is not unique to Wikipedia or pop culture articles. I stopped there but I pretty sure there are more such sources to be found. Furthermore, none of the added sources have been proved to be circular. I checked before adding them and found zero evidence of copied phrases or terms. For example, key words in their definitions are not found in either Wikipedia article on this topic. It was suggested that the Mental Floss source was circular "because their articles often are:". Agreed; however, in this case, none of the examples provided in that article are included in List of placeholder names. If anything, the Mental Floss piece can be used to augment the list article. Rublamb (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added to the article: Use of "placeholder" names has caused problems in circumstances where the placeholder is not thereafter substituted for a real name when it becomes available. For example, in 2009, the United States Army was forced to issue an apology when letters addressed to "John Doe" were sent to thousands of families of soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. (ref: Jelinek, Pauline (January 8, 2009). "'John Doe' letter stirs apology from Army". Oakland Tribune. p. 8 – via newspapers.com.). A 2015 report noted that hospitals using a standard "Babyboy" or "Babygirl" placeholder for the first names of unidentified newborns has led to mixups in identification and medication of the infants. (ref: Cha, Eunjung (July 20, 2015). "Temporary baby names are blamed for many hospital mixups". Press of Atlantic City. pp. C2 – via newspapers.com.). BD2412 T 21:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that I have changed my !vote back to a keep vote per Wikipedia:Article titles#Descriptive title, which states: "Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles". BD2412 T 21:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have no editors advocating Deletion but there is still not a consensus on the proper outcome for this article (Keep or Merge). Let's give this a few more days to see if agreement can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 16 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 keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep since that is clearly the overall sentiment of the discussion, with the caveat that most (not all) of the Keep supporters did not engage with the main argument of the nomination. But while I am willing in some cases to close a discussion against the majority when there is a strong policy argument from the minority, those cases typically aren't this lopsided and usually involve brighter lines such as BLP policy. In this case the only realistic alternative would be "no consensus", which would probably lead to another DRV or worse a speedy renomination, neither of which would be a productive exercise. So I'm giving the majority its win, but with an advisory that if a year or more from now the only sources about it are still from a narrow timeframe, there will be no reason to take the result of this discussion as a precedent. RL0919 (talk) 06:49, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clanker


Clanker (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)

My edit noting the page's notability issues was reverted claiming the page is notable. I believe the term clearly fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS as all the coverage was from some days to a week ago suddenly seizing on the neologism. While the term was used in the Star Wars series a long time before that, it was only a fan thing equivalent to "frack" from Battlestar Galactica and hardly noted by itself. It will take much longer to determine whether or not the word is independently notable, though it could be mentioned in Droid (Star Wars) where it originally redirected. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This word has gained a lot of coverage in the last 8 days. If it had this many sources over a more prolonged period I would think it notable. But all of the articles are very similar, covering some recent videos, memes and a comment by a senator. If the coverage continues then this should be an article but with only 8 days' of coverage I feel it fails on WP:SUSTAINED (Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability). I'm hesitating to !vote to delete or keep, as we don't yet know if it will have long-term notability. I think the best solution would be for it to spend a few months as a draft. If people are still writing about it in reliable sources in December then it's notable, if it's all-but forgotten about by then, it can be deleted. Mgp28 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is, of course, in a very precarious space, covering emerging vocabulary which itself concerns an already emerging field. Whilst Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, this term is unique in its implications in contemporary discourse, and the article itself contains reasonable evidence that the term is gaining traction and will become increasingly relevant. If the word is quickly forgotten, then deletion will be warranted. However, in the short-medium term, this article has clear relevancy, whilst (for the time being, perhaps) lacking coverage. Therefore, for the meantime at least, I judge that a cautionary label such as 'stub' would be preferable to outright deletion or draftification. Djack1770 (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very reliable sources exist 2600:4040:2821:D500:15ED:D8F8:B2D5:D588 (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the article creator, the sources and article clearly establish that the term has already become used far outside the Star Wars fandom with Senator Ruben Gallego including it in political messaging. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but that policy includes WP:NEO, which says that "to support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term," which this article satisfies. The neologism policy also says that "when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles," and since the term has taken on a popular meaning outside the Star Wars context with linguistic and economic analysis of that new usage, a distinct article from Droid (Star Wars) is more appropriate. In April 2025, I opened WP:Articles for deletion/Italian brainrot, which agreed to keep an Internet meme article using far lower-quality sources than Gizmodo, NPR, and NBC News, all of which were published within a month of the article's creation. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:02, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, WP:NSUSTAINED's "See also" wikilinks to Wikipedia:Notability#Events and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event shows how this guideline is primarily meant to prevent articles on events or people with one temporary, yet newsworthy aspect. For an article on a word, even if usage of "clanker" declines, this set of in-depth analysis from high-quality sources will make the article a worthwhile resource on early responses to artificial intelligence. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 19:10, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Italian brainrot wasn't kept per se, you just withdrew it. There's a possibility the pendulum would have swung back towards delete if more people were allowed to weigh in, especially if all the sources were from a very close together range of dates. It's a common error to assume that early results in a discussion mean it's already over, but AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE.
SUSTAINED applies to most articles, not just people and events. It simply says topics for a reason. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I am getting at is that the typical use of WP:NSUSTAINED is against a BLP after ten "Dog saves boy who fell into a well" articles are written because with limited info, all sources would present the same story without a WP:credible claim of significance. As I expressed below, the sources here offer in-depth analysis from varied angles. Thus, reassessing whether coverage dies in a few weeks seems better than draftifying a well-sourced page simply because the sources are all new. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was never arguing GNG is failed by the article, only that SUSTAINED is failed due to the incredibly short timespan of the sources, making it akin to news. If you have a counterargument for that specifically, let me know. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:45, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point that ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and I are making is that just as we got a July 2025 Central Texas floods article on the first day of the event occurring because WP:LASTING tells us that "it may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable," we have multiple high-quality sources here analyzing the word in different ways. Axios and Rolling Stone analyze the economics of AI-induced job losses. Gizmodo discusses the history of robot discrimination in Star Wars suggesting how present-day disdain for robots may evolve. NPR interviewed a linguist and think tank director.
"Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" in the sense that we wait for the secondary sources to appear, but now we have many. As Rosguill expresses below, WP:NSUSTAINED does not mean we have to wait four months (per Mgp28) after initial publication to confirm lasting notability before article creation. In this case, waiting a few weeks to re-assess whether this article still deserves inclusion seems more appropriate. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most massive news events get articles even though it is breaking the rules, simply because there is a critical mass of inexperienced users who are not aware of the rules and rush to put the article there. It is virtually impossible to stop it, because SUSTAINED is a more obscure policy than notability. Sometimes that leads to deletion later on if it doesn't stay in the news, although a lot of times it is given the benefit of the doubt that it will have lasting coverage simply due to its outsized effect. Still in this case it is highly unclear whether it will remain a lasting word in the lexicon akin to "AI slop" or it is just a fad. (And if you ask me, is a little bit too early given we have no droids yet...) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with July 2025 Central Texas floods as our example, EF5 is an experienced editor prolific in their quality article writing. I dispute that they were unaware of or intentionally breaking the rules of WP:NSUSTAINED based on my above reasoning that this guideline does not instruct us to delay article creation when significant coverage exists to establish notability, simply because that coverage is new. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 05:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It was more of an WP:IAR publish, as it was very obvious it was going to be a devastating event from the get-go. EF5 12:05, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not commenting on anyone's intentions or thought process on creating these articles, but this comparison itself is absurd. Are we really trying to compare an article about a major natural disaster with...a slang word used in Star Wars...? It's hard for me to think of a more apples and oranges comparison. Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant to express that WP:NSUSTAINED doesn't even preclude an article on ongoing natural disasters, not that the existence of July 2025 Central Texas floods is a precise benchmark for our decision-making here. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 15:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mu - I was asked to comment by ViridianPenguin on the basis of my participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian brainrot. I feel like I can see both sides of this discussion? I think that delete !voters are technically correct in pointing to WP:SUSTAINED . That having been said, I'm not sure we really have any set standard of what time frame we assess SUSTAINED at for a new word? Does it move the needle at all that there's also some coverage in journalistic sources from a few weeks ago too ([1], [2])? I think that the issues of it feeling like the article is high on filler could be addressed by splitting off a very short lead, then restructuring the body to be more chronological, and cutting stuff that wouldn't pass the WP:TENYEARTEST like that a Senator used it in a tweet. signed, Rosguill talk 03:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with the proposed reorganization but will wait for others to chime in on whether it is preferable before implementation. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 04:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:SUSTAINED or WP:TOOSOON are not applicable in a topic too new to have such sustained coverage--it's a reverse CRYSTAL violation to assume that coverage will not be sustained. If the GNG is met, and it appears to be here, then an argument for deletion per NOPAGE, since NTEMP would apply indefinitely, would be appropriate after six months of no further coverage. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said I assumed it wouldn't have sustained coverage, just that it is not possible to know. In my nomination: "It will take much longer to determine whether or not the word is independently notable". Something whose notability is unknown should not remain in article space, although draftification and reinstatement months later is certainly possible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:31, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It’s never too soon for an article. EF5 12:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lack of sustained coverage has not been demonstrated. Einsof (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Sources that show notability clearly exist. Also per Wikipedia:Not too soon. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Keep: I think that we should just wait a little bit to see if any more sources will pop up discussing this topic, so that there'd at least be some sustained coverage. Keep in mind that most of the sources are from the past week. So, it's technically an evolving story. The sourcing looks okay good to me and hopefully we'll get more coverage in the coming days. I don't know how long it will take, but generally, such articles on popular culture topics will basically only (or mostly) get coverage in a short period and nothing beyond that. So, we should not consider sustained coverage to range for months in the future. We should instead look for sustained coverage for the next couple of weeks. I could reconsider my vote if more sources show up in the coming days. The AfD was just listed yesterday and it is very likely that this discussion will be relisted, so by then, we'll 100% know whether the topic passes sustained coverage. I do not think that WP:TOOSOON could apply here because there's clearly coverage in reliable sources which show that the topic is most likely notable. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has extensive coverage from a plethora of reliable sources. Looking like a case of WP:TOOSOONDEL. jolielover♥talk 02:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage shown goes beyond simple reporting and spans over a decent period, though small, shows sustained coverage. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think it represents an ongoing battle against the domination of artificial intelligence. Keep. Jayson (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Re-affirming previous users; seems as though there is enough notability for this to be kept, the article just needs more expansion. SouthernDude297 (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin Most of the keep comments so far have been pure votes or not actually addressing the argument made in the deletion nomination. The argument is not that it fails GNG or has insufficient sources, but that it fails the specific policy WP:SUSTAINED. People have yet to demonstrate that there is a source talking about its use as an anti-AI term akin to "AI slop" prior to a week or two ago. I am mostly familiar with the term "clunker" rather than "clanker" to refer to old cars, but this article is clearly about the anti AI term rather than a previous incarnation of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that argument has been addressed. WP:TOOSOONDEL was invoked because it's too soon to predict if it will not have sustained coverage. Perhaps in a month or two we can actually assess that, but as of right now, there is no way to know if coverage will or will not be sustained. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with ArtemisiaGentileschiFan that while not every keep response has been a direct response to the WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS claims raised in the nomination, multiple keep responses have raised rebuttals via WP:TOOSOONDEL and WP:NOTTOOSOON. No one is obligated to satisfy you in rebutting that articles on this broader use of "clanker" are very recent if the keep responses take the position that it is fine for this to be the case as long as we do not subsequently see a drop off in coverage. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The last talk discussion [3] on WP:SUSTAINED suggests that the common understanding was that there is a presumption of notability for temporary events, and that they can be AFD'd once it's been established that they are not sustained. Would suggest that the essay WP:TOOSOON is definitely not consensus, and people should have a look at WP:NOTTOOSOON and WP:TOOSOONDEL. Possibly that section needs rewriting to make it more clear that we can tolerate articles with a brief flurry of secondary reliable sources until it is established that they are not sustained, because deleting this article suggests that the wait till it's not notable of WP:NTEMP doesn't apply in cases around the sustained coverage policy, which doesn't make much sense to me. Sam0fc (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly that section needs rewriting to make it more clear that we can tolerate articles with a brief flurry of secondary reliable sources
    That's doubtful to happen because if that was really the case, then Wikipedia would all but become a news website. WikiNews is still there for people who want to write news articles about things like this. Wikipedia is not news and is only concerned with things that are historically notable. While there is some tolerance for major world events, I would not call a new slang word a "major world event". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:47, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since its origins in 2005, this is exactly the sort of article which is both interesting and important and notable enough to be kept, but that otherwise tends to get nominated for an AfD for any number of silly reasons. Iljhgtn (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term has extensively covered in significant sources and it can be expanded instead. Also passes WP:GNG. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was unsure at first, but there is a serious amount of coverage in here and a United States Senator using this term is a major sign that it's moved to the mainstream. Dflovett (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IP, your statement about it only being used by "terminally online children" is not very accurate; the mere fact that a US Senator is using it (as seen in this news article) is enough IMO to warrant inclusion. The topic clearly has enough SIGCOV to have its own article. Please see WP:TOOSOONDEL. Honestly I think that WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply here. The point of WP:SUSTAINED is that articles with no sustained coverage over a long period of time should be considered for deletion, which is not the case here given the article I cited is only a few days old. Gommeh 🎮 20:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2025 August 13. An administrator may reclose the AfD after the required seven (total) days of discussion have elapsed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clanker will be used as a slur for robots for who-knows-how-long. In 20-30 years it will probably be one of the most offensive words to exist. Theobegley2013 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty bold statement, we have no real way of predicting what will happen to the word "clanker" in the future Thegoofhere (talk) 05:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that as an article that this could easily fall within the same sort of category as the Hallucination (artificial intelligence) article, as both are neologisms related to AI. Despite being a new "fad" term I could see its use continuing well into the future. Preinstallable (t/c) 10:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's a lot of sources and this word has gone beyond just being a typical slang term and has become popular in the gen AI debate. It also has widespread usage, including by a US senator.
Shocksingularity (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looked up the term as my son used it and I found it an article in a UK newspaper. The term has moved into being cited in mainstream media, and will likely end up in UK dictionaries and encyclopaedias. Wikipedia should reflect such usage beyond the fan articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.237.45.36 (talk) 10:55, 28 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) Moritoriko (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maëlys

Maëlys (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)

Same issue as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mael (name): Notability (and verifiability) is not evident. Tagged as needing more sources since 2020. Cites only one source, a website that appears to be a WP:SPS. Sandstein 13:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that the standard for notability of other given name articles has been existing articles about notable people with the given name, which this one has. Before recommending this article for deletion, the editor could have done a cursory search and found as much. it should never have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that "the standard for notability of other given name articles has been existing articles about notable people with the given name" is new to me. In which guideline is this documented? Sandstein 16:25, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s what is quoted every time one of these debates comes up. I disagree. I think notability is established with the popularity or history of a name, but the standard argument seems to be that three or more Wikipedia articles about a person with the given name establishes it as notable. Note that people add links to articles about people with a given name as they have interest and time. There are more people named Mael than I had time to list and there are probably more articles about people named Maelys. There's probably an argument for separating names according to the diacritic marks since they have different patterns of use, but they are spelled the same way in English. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on name lists is WP:NNAME). Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That page says: "This is a WikiProject advice page on style. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Therefore, WP:NNAME is of no significance for the question of whether or not to include this page. What matters is the community-vetted guideline WP:GNG. It requires substantial coverage in reliable sources of the name and its origins. I'm not seeing that. Sandstein 09:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens or hundreds of other existing name lists that follow the exact same format. There is no reason to delete these articles or any of the others. Speedy Keep.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it is not policy does not mean it is "of no significance". Ike Lek (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:00, 14 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Svartner (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mael (name)

Mael (name) (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)

Notability (and verifiability) is not evident. Tagged as needing more sources since 2020. Cites only one source, a website that appears to be a WP:SPS. Sandstein 13:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article conflates Welsh, Breton mael [mai̯l] < Celtic *mag(a)lo- and (Old) Irish mael [maːi̯l] < Celtic *mailo- meaning 'bald'. Tipcake (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, the obvious answer would be to find references supporting revisions to the meaning of the name and to edit it, not to delete it. This article is notable as a name list due to the number of articles about people with the given name that are linked in the article and the additional numbers that can be added. This is the same standard that applies to dozens of existing given name articles. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy on name lists is WP:NNAME. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That page says: "This is a WikiProject advice page on style. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how to format and present article content within their area of interest. An advice page has the status of an essay and is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Therefore, WP:NNAME is of no significance for the question of whether or not to include this page. What matters is the community-vetted guideline WP:GNG. It requires substantial coverage in reliable source of the name and its origins. I'm not seeing that. Sandstein 08:59, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are dozens or hundreds of other existing name lists that follow the exact same format. There is no reason to delete these articles or any of the others. Speedy Keep. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nomination does not qualify for a speedy close per WP:SK. Please modify your !vote if you wish to comment about the notability of the article itself.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:57, 14 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. I can't find any consensus for a suitable redirect target (or even that redirection is appropriate here), but I do find consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:14, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voiced linguolabial lateral approximant

Voiced linguolabial lateral approximant (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)

No evidence of notability; a sound that doesn't exist in any language and hasn't even been claimed to exist is not notable. There is no evidence either that this sound is used frequently enough in disordered speech to warrant an article. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fade258 (talk) 15:16, 13 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ped-

Ped- (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)

WP:NOTDICTIONARY and has no encyclopedic value 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:19, 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. The arguments on the Keep side are not based on P&G. Owen× ☎ 09:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home

List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home (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)

WP:OR, extracting data from the census to create a topic which doesn't meet WP:NLIST. Fram (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Social science, and Australia. Fram (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the nomination. This is pure WP:OR. TarnishedPathtalk 07:31, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you're willing to delete the two equivalent American articles. Wikipedia is not Americapedia, it is far too American-centric and this is just one example.
    Schestos (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schestos: Could you please explain how this !vote is backed by policy? ‍Relativity ⚡️ 16:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't. It's a textbook WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST argument. – The Grid (talk) 17:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how the article isn't notable when it has sources. Schestos (talk) 21:09, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a read of WP:NLIST. Jamming a bunch of sources into an article doesn't demonstrate notability. There needs to be multiple sources which are reliable, secondary, independent, and which address the subject directly and in depth to demonstrate notability. For lists that means sourcing which addresses the set of objects as a subject of enquiry. TarnishedPathtalk 10:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What would you search for to see if see if reliable sources cover this topic? I see https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/how-multicultural-is-your-suburb/bq69vnf06 mentioning what languages are spoken where, having a map showing it as well. Is this an issue discussed by politicians and news debate? Dream Focus 19:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that map is another good source. And multiculturalism/multilingualism has been a political debate in Australia for over 100 years. Schestos (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That map excludes English, so it doesn´t show the same thing as this list. Fram (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. There are obviously plenty of sources discussing census data on multiculturalism and languages spoken by suburb, but for this to meet NLIST it would need to be the case that "suburbs in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home" have been discussed as a group or set, and I can't find any indication that that's the case. This article was the closest I could find and makes a brief mention that And in seven such suburbs, English is not the dominant language, but it's an extremely brief aside that still isn't about quite the same scope as this page. MCE89 (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this list does meet WP:NLIST, as this is either a "complex or cross-category" List of X of Y, or else is a navigation list with no need to meet NLIST (all the "fail WP:NLIST" are wild when WP:NLIST is notoriously non-specific in its second paragraph, and quite clearly carves out separate criteria for cross-cat and navigation lists). I also don't see how this is WP:OR, as it seems like figuring out list inclusion is just WP:CALC...? And I don't see how list author created this topic when "English as a minority language at home" is a pretty routine research topic in linguistics/demographics afaik? And the fact that the US equivalents of this list are not included in this nom, despite having just as little sourcing as this Aus list, seems super inconsistent and iffy to me. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A navigation list still needs to be about a notable topic. I could make a list of all suburbs with two or more "A"s in the name, which would be a simple "calc", verifiable by all, and would only include bluelinks, so usable for navigation. It would be a totally unacceptable page for Wikipedia. What is needed to make such a navigation list acceptable is some reliable sources indicating that this specific grouping is indeed a noted topic. No such sources have been presented so far. As for the "iffy" aspect, I look at new pages, and nominate potentially problematic ones for deletion. I don't look for older similar articles by other editors across enwiki. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is often used in AfDs for a reason. Fram (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To editor Fram: A navigation list still needs to be about a notable topic. is not the case, really. Per WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. And in any case, please note my vote was not this is a nav list, but rather this is a cross-cat list or a nav list. And re the iffy aspect of this nom, the Amer lists were already linked in the Aus list when it was nom'ed for AfD, so I don't see how they were overlooked or missed to make a cohesive group AfD..? The point is other stuff that should've been nominated in here was not, not other stuff exists out there. And in any case, my vote rests on WP:NLIST and WP:OR, not on the inconsistent or iffy aspect of the nom (we can just ignore that wlog). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Recognized" navigational purposes, not something found interesting by the list creator or some people. Fram (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hah! Good point: I do hereby recognise this list topic for nav purposes.[Humour] (But if it were shown this list was not a cross-cat list [so could only be a nav list], and this topic served no recognised nav purpose, I feel that might make a good argument for deleting? Much sounder than prior delete args imo :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Change vote to Delete - my reading of NLIST seems more novel and less faithful to what seems to be consensus reading of NLIST for these sorts of lists (per this N talk). Apologies for doubting your reading of NLIST, Fram! Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a notable enough subject to be kept track of, and Wikipedia an WP:ALMANAC. Dream Focus 18:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSNOTABLE 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty clearly per WP:NOTSTATS. This is just one of myriad ways of presenting one particular slice of information from census data and offers no particular reason why. On top of that, this is an unencyclopedic WP:CROSSCAT. To see why, ask yourself why Locale A which has 31% Pig Latin speakers vs. 30% English speakers will be listed, but Locale B with 31% English and 30% Pig Latin won't. Why does the language spoken at home matter vs. general fluency? How does this data account for multiple languages spoken at home? Why is only 2021 listed? Will we have an article for every census? Will we only keep current data? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be updated after every census. And the Australian census doesn't ask about fluency in languages other than English, only language spoken at home and fluency in English. Schestos (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is non-notable but some editors bring up how NLIST may allow this. However, NLIST states "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". It links to WP:LISTPURP, which provides the definitions of these.
Information: Now, I don't think that this list is a particularly useful information source, since it just rearranges the information of the Australian census. Everything you would hope to find here, can already be found solely in the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Also, it is just structured by state and territory.
Navigation: This is not an index, outline or other table of contents
Development: These topics are very fringely related and all of them are blue links anyway. If this list did serve a purpose for development, that is already fulfilled and so it can be deleted. The above comments for navigation also apply.
Lists and categories: Again, this doesn't really apply as this doesn't serve a navigation purpose. There isn't a category for this list, and if there was then that would be WP:OVERCAT since you combine "suburbs and localities" with "Australia" and "English not being the most spoken language" and this is all specifically at home, not at work, not anywhere else. 🇪🇭 Easternsahara U T C 22:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I will keep per the afd discussions of the american lists, there is a lot of information about "multilingual communities" in australia, like the usa lists. However, the outcome of this should be the same as the american afds on the topic 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 17:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easternsahara If you are changing to keep, you should will need to strike your original vote. If you don't know how to do it, I can do it for your if you give me permission. Thank you Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most suburbs have English as most spoken language at home, even most suburbs where there is a large non white non British ancestry population, hence it does appear notable enough. Servite et contribuere (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what Wikipedia:Notability means when used in deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:52, 18 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 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 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.

Prodded articles

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1305652791"