Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classification of Indo-European language
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Indo-European languages. kurykh 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Classification of Indo-European language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Redundant to the information provided in Indo-European languages. Unlikely search term. Atmoz (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say a redirect will cut it. Nothing to merge. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Indo-European_languages; I've also checked all the language articles listed and they are all already included somewhere within Category:Indo-European languages. --MPerel 19:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Indo-European_languages if this term is even needed. Immediately afterwards I would suggest an RfD because I don't know if anyone would have reason to type in Classification of Indo-European language. Valley2city‽ 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd say curiosity coupled with a bit of errare humanum est would suffice. I'd say there's no need for a lengthy discussion over the death of a fairly legitimate redirect the existence of which wouldn't hurt a soul. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I tend to usually be quite inclusionist in terms of redirs. In fact, I've created tons of them for very common spelling errors and others. But will people type in this lengthy search string? I'll keep my vote at redir and the existence of another redir is negligable but they add up.Valley2city‽ 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will answer to the best of my knowledge: I don't know, and I can't say that it's impossible. --Ouro (blah blah) 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, I tend to usually be quite inclusionist in terms of redirs. In fact, I've created tons of them for very common spelling errors and others. But will people type in this lengthy search string? I'll keep my vote at redir and the existence of another redir is negligable but they add up.Valley2city‽ 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd say curiosity coupled with a bit of errare humanum est would suffice. I'd say there's no need for a lengthy discussion over the death of a fairly legitimate redirect the existence of which wouldn't hurt a soul. --Ouro (blah blah) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no redirect as no one will search for this ungrammatical title. —Angr 22:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems perfectly grammatical to me. It's using "language" as the abstract noun encompassing all forms of verbal communication, not as a reference to a specific language, which is a less-used meaning, but still perfectly valid. JulesH (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The abstract "language" can't be modified as "Indo-European", though. Once you add that modifier, you're referring to a specific language (the Proto-Indo-European language) or group of languages (the Indo-European languages). —Angr 07:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems perfectly grammatical to me. It's using "language" as the abstract noun encompassing all forms of verbal communication, not as a reference to a specific language, which is a less-used meaning, but still perfectly valid. JulesH (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Ouro's remarks. —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not unlikely at all, not if you study languagesWarrington (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2009 (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.