Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chidgk1 (talk | contribs) at 14:53, 14 August 2025 (Listing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pronunciation of v in German.). 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of v in German

Pronunciation of v in German (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)

Uncited, not notable and lacks sound Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 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.

List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home

List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken 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)

Basically per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home. This is mostly WP:OR from sources that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST. The second paragraph is not an excuse either, since 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 terms. I don't think these are excuses since Information: Now, I don't think that this list is a particularly useful information source, since it just rearranges the information of the census. Everything you would hope to find here, can already be found solely there. 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. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the United States counties where English is not the majority language spoken at home 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NLIST. Here's how this article complies:
  • First: collectively, the list as a subject is notable. The topic of multilingual communities in general is clearly notable given constant discussion in the USA about multilingualism. Someone on right-wing news always clutches their pearls when another town or region tips to a foreign language. There's been a lot of academic research, too; for example, see this Google Scholar list of journal articles about multilingual communities.
  • Second: the individual list items are all reliably sourced to the United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey data. Per NLIST, individual entries require reliable referencing but do not each require significant coverage ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable").
  • Third: the purpose of the article is to provide useful or interesting information. I find both this and the counties list interesting. This article received 8,013 page views in the last year, excluding bots and crawlers; this is better than many of our articles, so there is some interest in the material.
As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home, I cannot speak to the topicality of multilingualism in Australia. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per this N talk, it looks like most editors would want the exact list group/set (United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home) to be notable, rather than a rescoped group/set (like "US multilingual communities" as in the Google Scholar link by A. B.) Agree with A. B. that individual list members do not need to be notable though. Still could not find the list's exact group/set via quick Google search (but might've missed something?). Agree with nom that this list's group/set seems a bit like WP:OVERCAT imo (unless noted in sources I missed, ofc). Would keep per A. B.'s point re list's informational purpose, but honestly not sure how to assess that :/ - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. [1], [2] and [3] are sufficient enough to meet NList. (I also think this is very clearly a useful list but I understand that meeting NList is a better argument). Esolo5002 (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not disagree that the subject of multilingualism in the US is notable. It is. However, this list isn't notable because it doesn't have sources to verify the list itself. Meaning that this categorization is not made by independent, secondary, reliable sources. Government sources aren't independent 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 12:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reason to believe that the census is wrong. As long as the topic itself has reliable coverage each entry does not have to be covered in reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of the United States counties where English is not the majority language spoken at home

List of the United States counties where English is not the majority language spoken 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)

Basically per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home. This is mostly WP:OR from sources that don't meet WP:SIGCOV. Therefore, it fails WP:NLIST. The second paragraph is not an excuse either, since 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 terms. I don't think these are excuses since Information: Now, I don't think that this list is a particularly useful information source, since it just rearranges the information of the census. Everything you would hope to find here, can already be found solely there. 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 19:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NLIST. Here's how this article complies:
  • First: collectively, the list as a subject is notable. The topic of multilingual communities in general is clearly notable given constant discussion in the USA about multilingualism. Someone on right-wing news always clutches their pearls when another town or region tips to a foreign language. There's been a lot of academic research, too; for example, see this Google Scholar list of journal articles about multilingual communities.
  • Second: the individual list items are all reliably sourced to Modern Language Association of America data; per NLIST, individual entries require reliable referencing but do not each require significant coverage ("Because the group or set is notable, the individual entries in the list do not need to be independently notable").
  • Third: the purpose of the article is to provide useful or interesting information. I find both this and the communities list interesting. The county level information shows whole areas where languages other than English are really established as opposed to the communities list which lists what are sometimes just small pockets of foreign language. The article received 2103 page views in the last year, excluding bots and crawlers; this is better than many of our articles, so there is some interest in the material.
As for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of suburbs and localities in Australia where English is not the most spoken language at home, I cannot speak to the topicality of multilingualism in Australia. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:26, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The list itself is not verified though, in independent secondary, rs. so it doesn't meet wp:nlist 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 12:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The list itself is not verified though, in independent secondary, rs" -- that's incorrect. The Modern Language Association of America is reliable (based on census data), independent (a large, prestigious academic body) and secondary. Go check it out. A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for same reasons as my delete in the other AfD - except that would not keep this one even for informational purposes as per A. B., as this list seems less relied on for info than the other one, and they both serve similar info purposes it looks like/imo - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a better idea than keep- better one article than two. "Keep", of course, is still a viable option as I outlined above. Thanks, Eluchil404. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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. (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. 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.

Prodded articles

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language&oldid=1305867278"