Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Language. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Language|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Language

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

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

Despite being tagged for notability and COI since 2022, the current version of this article still provides no justification for its inclusion in Wikipedia. The references are primarily user-generated or self-published promotional websites. There is not a single reliable secondary or academic source demonstrating why the subject is notable as a researcher, professor, or author. The article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Deletion preferred.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 07:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. jolielover♥talk 09:46, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I have found some references, including book reviews about the subject, and also a couple of articles on Google Scholar. In addition, I came across some general references which I believe are sufficient for WP:PROF and WP:NAUTHOR. The rest of the articles need some cleanup and copy-editing, which I will do once I get free, as per WP:ATD. Thanks. Baqi:) (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jannatulbaqi: I have reviewed all the sources you mentioned and found nothing that establishes the subject’s notability. Here is the breakdown of your references:

1, It’s an article about Urdu poetry; nothing is relevant to the article.
2, These are some routine book reviews. They are not published in any academic publications; instead, they are advertisements published in news media. Plus, there is nothing that establishes the subject’s notability.
3 This is a user-generated file-sharing website. What is the relation of this unreliable website to the article’s notability?
4, The article is about Urdu Ghazal in Sindh.
5 A catalogue of a book about Ghalib.

This article falls under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which states that it must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and the avoidance of original research. We must be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. The sources you mentioned do not meet WP:NBASIC, which requires that people are presumed notable only if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 17:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Svartner (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orwellian

AfDs for this article:

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

This word should be either redirected to George Orwell or soft-redirected to wikt:Orwellian. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and the useful encyclopedic information here can be easily merged to Orwell's biography article if need be. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Arts, Language, Literature, Philosophy, History, Politics, and England. silviaASH (inquire within) 02:30, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources used in the article show GNG - they don't just mention the word in passing, they have whole sources around the word and its connotation and significance. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing per WP:NOPAGE at the very least, since pretty much everything here is already there. This doesn't need a separate article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems like an unused neologism. ~Rafael! (He, him) • talk • guestbook • projects 13:54, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much of a deletionist as I consider myself, this isn't a neologism, and it's quite well used. An ngrams search shows the first uses in the 1940s, with generally increasing usage ever since. Not only that, but we actually have sources discussing this as a concept (not just as a word), so I think there's actually worthwhile content here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets GNG, multiple sources in article that directly address the term itself. Additional ones found after a quick search NYT, Vox, USA Today. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But why not redirect as I suggested? It's a mere paragraph, and there's just not that much to say about it outside the context of Orwell's biography generally. And indeed, this content is already there. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

soft keep nothing wrong with it per se Oreocooke (talk) 03:10, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George Orwell § Influence on language and writing as per above. This is really just an elaborated dict def, and while the word is tossed around quite a lot I don't see the need to spin this out into a separate article. Mangoe (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Honestly surprised this is as small as it is. Definitely notable as it has sustained usage for decades. Certainly needs expansion. Metallurgist (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a notable term that can be expanded on beyond a simple dictionary definition per WP:NEXIST. I am of the belief that redirecting an otherwise notable page can often permanently prevent it from being expanded because very few editors assume redirected pages have article potential. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any specific details or information the article could be expanded with that would not be redundant to nor in scope for George Orwell? silviaASH (inquire within) 10:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources brought up in this same discussion can clearly be used to expand it into a full non redundant article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:02, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, I missed those links somehow. I'll have a look later and give my opinion. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:05, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The use of this word and thus the importance of this article will only grow with time. 2601:600:8F82:8370:7DBC:F230:C0D1:CA89 (talk) 01:53, 3 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. No takers for deletion, and nom's feelings appear to have softened. asilvering (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AUI (constructed language)

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

No evidence of notability I can see. Main sources of significant coverage are not independent, one links back to this article and is apparently self-published. Survived deletion in 2005; that discussion is here. Draw you own conclusions but I have to think notability standards have evolved since then. Significant COI editing as noted on the talk page. I didn't find any relevant sources on google scholar, which may not be surprising given this language was purportedly revealed to Weilgart by an alien. —Rutebega (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. —Rutebega (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a professor of psychology my father was never involved with the linguistic academic community and it is likely not useful to use online metrics for what happened long before the Internet.

aUI is a recognized Conlang with a decades long respected history, included on lists of all comprehensive well known conlangs.

The criteria for notability and conflict of interest clause is biased itself. We have Wikipedia articles on some teenage streamers who swear while playing video games and articles about fake products and services that will never be produced, made by corporate shills just to impress investors. There is also endless astroturfing in articles that even remotely have something to do with politics or history.

Thanks so much for your unbiased attention!

Cosmicomandi (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS After being invited to speak at the international Polyglot Gathering this spring, and also at two Conlang Adventures put on by the Polyglot and Language Lovers of LA, I just finished presenting at the world's largest sci fi con, WorldCon in Seattle. Cosmicomandi (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is not about your COI; I mentioned it only to provide full context for the article being discussed for deletion. I do think the question What am I selling? is a strange thing to ask in light of this web store on what you referred to as our current website. Anyone is welcome to participate here, but I would strongly encourage you to read through our requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia and make arguments based on those established guidelines. You may also find this guide for experts informative. —Rutebega (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Quite a bit of coverage in Arika Okrent's In the Land of Invented Languages (from Random House, but author seems reliable) , couple pages of coverage in Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik 2018 (here), from Leipziger Universitätsverlag, some short textual analysis in Perspectives on Linguistic Pragmatics (here) and Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics (here), both from Springer. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:29, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with a keep on this. There's a review in The Times Literary Supplement (no. 3600, Gale EX1200370742) for aUI, The Language of Space, and some coverage in newspapers: Kansas City Times, Leader-Telegram. The article does need some work though. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these! Okrent seems credible but mostly focuses on Weilgart's personal history, with a few interesting details about the language thrown in. Much better coverage in JGI, but I want to verify it's been peer reviewed before relying heavily on it; the author does not seem to have an academic affiliation. The newspaper articles along with Okrent's book would seem to establish notability for Weilgart himself. I am now leaning toward a page move and cleanup if people are amenable to that. —Rutebega (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly appreciate your efforts in finding these articles. Yes, Arika Okrent, PhD linguist, author of Land of Invented Languages had extensively interviewed me for that. And her chapter on aUI covers more than just my father's personal details. Just wanted to also add, that it's exactly for the reason of clarifying misinterpretations on the internet (mostly due to Brad Steiger's book) about Weilgart's supposed revelation of the language by an alien - ridiculous as a serious philosopher and psychoanalyst - that a Wikipedia article can serve. And I can see that the website still is not clear enough in that respect. "...A boyhood vision of an ET imparting a transparent tongue" means a 'boyhood vision' - not an actual occurrence - it was simply his earliest inspiration.

As for 'what am I selling?" - you're right, forgot about that - since I haven't sold but maybe one book there. Selling, you may be able to surmise, is not our main goal; this is an idealistic, educational cause as part of a non-profit organization working in the interest of world peace (at least in a theoretical way) and if I'm selling anything it's in search of a graduate student who would be interested in taking on aUI as part of research of brain mapping - semantic vs. phonological mapping.

Thank you again ever so much for your understanding!

Cosmicomandi (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC) Cosmicomandi (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources identified by ARandomName123. I caution others to look at the sources, judge purely by our notability guidelines, and avoid being prejudicial because of the involvement of an editor with a clear WP:COI. Our job here is not to solve the COI problem but evaluate notability.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 23 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 14:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of v in German

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Germany. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like something which is better covered at Standard German phonology given this page has a convoluted title that is an unlikely search term. Fwiw I found this alternative in a search. JMWt (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete unsourced how-to guide. Mangoe (talk) 12:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGUIDE, unreferenced. jolielover♥talk 02:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect but agree with JMWt it's pretty implausible. —Rutebega (talk) 20:29, 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.

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

(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 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 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]

If Keep, Move to "List of places in the United States where English is not the majority language". Atavoidirc (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 14 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]

Keep. The false balance with Australian article is unconvincing (WP:OTHERSTUFF). desmay (talk) 15:17, 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 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 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

(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 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 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 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 East ernsa hara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 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]

If Keep, Move to "List of places in the United States where English is not the majority language". Atavoidirc (talk) 01:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 14 August 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 with List of the United States communities where English is not the majority language spoken at home which could probably use a rititle and slight rescope, but this is reliably sourced data on a notable topic. No need to delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 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 no consensus‎. $Salvio giuliano$ 08:57, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder name

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]
- Withdrawn after discussion in talk page in favor of a reasonable page rename to a generic title. --Altenmann >talk 23:43, 10 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]
- Yes the terms you listed exist . Reminds me the history with the term "snowclone". Snowclones did exist, but linguists didnt know about them up until the 21st ceentury :-) --Altenmann >talk 01:02, 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Business, and Popular culture. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Change to merge. Per the discussion above, I am formally supporting merging to placeholder per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to placeholder name (soft redirect is ok, although I am not sure what can be merged?). The problem is OR - no ref for the definition in the lead, and no use of placeholder word by the title of any reference used. What is this about? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:08, 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]

Note. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of placeholder names as well. I should have bundle nominated this other page, but I wasn't aware of it until after I made this nom. @Piotrus, FaviFake, and BD2412 courtesy pinging you to make you aware of this other discussion.4meter4 (talk) 11:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Fyi, List of terms referring to an average person was also mentioned in the merge discussion. FaviFake (talk) 11:38, 9 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]

Keep - per WP:HEY. Sufficient sourcing to avoid a merge. Editorially, it seems plausible we could cover this under Placeholder word. Suriname0 (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Placeholder to kill two birds with one stone: merging a small article into another one, and starting an article about a primary topic (Placeholder). The page Placeholder currently says: "This page holds the title of a primary topic and an article needs to be written about it. It is believed to qualify as a broad-concept article. It may be written directly at this page or drafted elsewhere and then moved to this title".--FaviFake (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with this suggestion in my view is that we would also need to merge in Placeholder word, to avoid an undue focus on names specifically. Suriname0 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. "Placeholder word" is carefully crafted basing on linguistic sources, while "placeholder name" is a haphazard original research. We already discussed with one Wikipedian that the proper title would be a descriptive title Names used as placeholders, because not a single authoritative source discusses the term "placeholder name" in depth sufficient for WP:GNG (don't be fooled with refbombing in the lede of "Placeholder name", a sure sign that sources are shaky). --Altenmann >talk 03:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus - everyone here seems to pretty much agree that this is an encyclopedic topic, we just can't decide where to put it. This hasn't been a deletion discussion for a couple of weeks now, and there are more appropriate ways to do this (WP:NOTCLEANUP, and such). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:58, 21 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

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are multiple articles about people with the name. Its popularity also makes it notable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While, based on my own WP:BEFORE, I'd advocate keeping a standalone title (similar to Daniela or Paula or Josephine or Gabriela or similar articles that meet WP:NNAME), if the male equivalent article (Mael (name)) is kept, at the very least this title could be redirected there. Personally don't think that outright deletion would be an appropriate outcome... Guliolopez (talk) 14:16, 8 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]

Weak Keep – I could see a merge with Maël being appropriate, but there seems to be some decent sourcing, including [4] and [5]. – Ike Lek (talk) 00:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Maëlys qualifies as a stand-alone list-class article because of the number of articles about notanle women or girls named Maëlys. I found and added three with a cursory search. The generally accepted standard is two or more. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Where exactly has the set of people with this name been the subject of such coverage? Sandstein 17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bookworm857158367 and Guliolopez. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:10, 21 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)

(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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 13:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maëlys which presents the same problems. Sandstein 13:59, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: France, Ireland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are multiple Wikipedia articles about people with the name. It is notable.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my own WP:BEFORE, including a review of the sources in the equivalent article on the French project (Maël [fr]), I found/added a number of sources which cover the topic in reasonable depth. Seemingly to address the SIGCOV and VER concerns. Granted most of the sources are directory-style entries - But they are at least equivalent to the type/depth/breadth of coverage seen in any other article on a given name. Guliolopez (talk) 14:09, 8 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) 14:57, 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 16:26, 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. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:39, 9 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]

Speedy keep per Bookworm and NNAME. What sets this page apart from a zillion other name lists? If there's something wrong with the etymology, fix or erase that part. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 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]

Keep, the article is poorly cited/sourced, but the name meets all the regular anthroponymy standards for at minimum a list article. Needs revision, not deletion. – Ike Lek (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further look at my regular anthroponymy sources (mostly focused on surnames) indicates at least one iteration of it is a precursor to the name Malcolm. Definitely something worth looking into. Ike Lek (talk) 04:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the "regular anthroponymy standards"? Are they covered by a guideline? Sandstein 05:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the style guide you dismissed, not really. The WikiProject is still active, but it's in need of some work. There's a lot of common practices that are accepted, but still need to be actually written down and discussed. A lot of it comes down to WP:NLIST when it gets into the nitty-gritty of why name articles are usually kept, which I'm guessing is where the rule of thumb Bookworm857158367 mentioned comes from. It's certainly a pretty commonly used standard among the project. Ike Lek (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on prior discussions, name articles should generally include a definition of a name, its origins, history of usage, and a list of articles about people and fictional characters with a particular given name. These names have been quite well used in France in the past few decades. The articles can be edited and improved upon. There is no reason to delete them, particularly when they are identical in format to dozens or hundreds of others. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 06:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of this is supported by community-wide consensus. WP:GNG is, and all articles must meet it. This article does not. Sandstein 09:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Community-wide consensus would seem to indicated by what has been a long-standing practice for dozens or hundreds of name lists/articles that follow exactly the same format. I would also remind you of WP:IAR. Exactly how would deleting these articles improve the encyclopedia? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better argument to keep in my opinion is that a name article only needs to meet WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. But I do also agree that there is just no good reason to get rid of them anyway. Ike Lek (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NLIST is the standard used for most of these articles. Both of these meet the standard.

Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NLIST says "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Where exactly has the set of people with this name been the subject of such coverage? Sandstein 17:29, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like you said, "One accepted reason". There are others, including lists that serve navigational purposes. Ike Lek (talk) 18:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NNAME and the argument put forward by bookworm. IJA (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bookworm857158367, Guliolopez and others. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:07, 21 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Contents

Language

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

Orwellian

AUI (constructed language)

Pronunciation of v in German

List of the United States communities 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

Placeholder name

Maëlys

Mael (name)

Prodded articles