Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germanic parent 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 Proto-Germanic language. If editors wish to Merge selected article content, they are free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Germanic parent language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I contemplated making a merge proposal for this article instead of a deletion request, but honestly I don't see much of a reason to keep this page as a redirect. A lot of this term's notability (which it already has little of) stems from the fact that this term has a Wikipedia article and not from its actual usage in academics. It would've never crossed anyone's mind to make a redirect page to Proto-Germanic language using this term had this article never been made in the first place. This is not a notable term; its use in academics is negligible and is almost completely confined to works by Frans Van Coetsem or works that directly involved him, and its use outside of academics is almost entirely in relation to this Wikipedia article and not in relation to the actual academics it originates from. Wikipedia should only document notable terms and not be what makes a term notable. This term was not made into a Wikipedia article because it was notable, but rather it is notable because it was made into a Wikipedia article. While talented Wikipedians have contributed to this article, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. I recommend a read of the talk page of Germanic parent language to understand why this article should be deleted, as editors there articulate why this page shouldn't exist far better than I'm able to do in this deletion nomination. – Treetoes023 (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and History. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- delete + redirect
weak keep I'm leaning toward keeping for a couple reasons:
If a user were to encounter this term elsewhere and come here for further information, this would be a great resource. It's unclear how likely that is, given the seemingly limited breadth of the scholarship. Comparative page views, if we're allowed to consider them.The page is referenced several times from Proto-Germanic language, which itself draws this distinction as a phase between PIE and PG. Because this area of scholarship isn't cut and dry
If retained, I think the main improvements would be to simplify some of the complex sentences to make it more accessible and to shift away from 'according to X' sentence structures, unless it's articulating a specific point of contention among scholars.I think a merge and edit down of the content could be beneficial as well, as this is very detailed for the more widely documented PG.Mad Jim Bey talk 23:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)- @Mad Jim Bey: The term being referenced several times in Proto-Germanic language is one of the reasons it should be deleted. Those references are of undue weight and were added in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage and importance of the term. The existence of this article affects other articles by promoting the term to be used in other articles despite its lack of notability in the academics Wikipedia is supposed to be recording. – Treetoes023 (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Treetoes023 I've been convinced. I dug into the listed sources in the reference material and searched through whatever I could access. Almost none of them actually refer to 'German parent language', but consistently to 'Proto-Germanic'. Those sources generally don't even reference the other mentioned source authors. It appears to be a limit ~4 academics who use this term, so I'm pro-delete (and redirect). Mad Jim Bey talk 01:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Mad Jim Bey: The same thing happened to me when I first came across the article in May 2024; the article had completely convinced me of the term's notability and I even made some copy edits on the article. I only realized after recent reexamination that the article had tricked me into believing the term had a far bigger part in Germanic linguistics than it actually did and that's what got me to nominate it for deletion. Who knows if it's fooled other people the same way and possibly caused them to perpetuate it? – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect. I'm not sure how the article has been on Wikipedia so long - there's no basis in the sources for a specific "Germanic Parent Language" that is different from Proto-Germanic. However, the term does occur occasionally in the literature meaning Proto-Germanic, and so I think a redirect is a better solution than outright deletion.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I've been arguing the pointlessness of this article for a long time. In principle, Ermenrich is right that, since the term does occur, a redirect might be more appropriate than deletion. But in practice anyone who comes across this term in the very limited selection of the specialist literature where it's used will recognize it simply as anything an occasional alternative to Proto-Germanic. There is already a redirect from Parent language to Proto-language, which seems to me to cover that issue entirely adequately anyway.--Pfold (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Proto-Germanic per NOTDICT and CFORK. This topic is covered by the Proto-Germanic article, including the Pre-Proto-Germanic section. Kanguole 08:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
RedirectMerge per nomOphyrius (he/him
T • C • G) 10:43, 31 July 2025 (UTC)- Comment, IIRC, the author wanted an article for the stage between P-IE and Grimm's law. There was obviously a Bronze Age Pre-Proto-Germanic language phase that followed P-IE and preceded the Proto-Germanic of the Iron Age.--Berig (talk) 14:22, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Comment: I'm with Berig. At least some of the information is useful and sourced. Should it be draftified or merged? Do we have to throw out the baby with the bath water? Bearian (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Bearian, the problem is that the only information that's sourced there actually using the title and concept of the article is by a single scholar, van Coetsem. The other citations do not agree with him or support his conclusions, so it's really a case of WP:SYNTH to create the impression that this is a real concept in the scholarly literature. I think Pfold, who's more of a linguist than I am, can confirm.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- All I can say is that the source citations I tried to follow up did not inspire confidence in those I didn't. Of course, some of the sources themselves might turn out to be useful in seeking to improve the Pre-Proto-Germanic section in Proto-Germanic, but best to evaluate them from scratch, I would say, without the obvious bias and inaccuracy of this article. --Pfold (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Bearian, the problem is that the only information that's sourced there actually using the title and concept of the article is by a single scholar, van Coetsem. The other citations do not agree with him or support his conclusions, so it's really a case of WP:SYNTH to create the impression that this is a real concept in the scholarly literature. I think Pfold, who's more of a linguist than I am, can confirm.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am not an expert, but the evolution of Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic seems like a valid topic for a separate article (if enough has been written on it) and "Pre-Proto-Germanic" sounds like the correct title for such a thing. Srnec (talk) 11:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is already a substantial and detailed section (admittedly unsourced) on Pre-Proto-Germanic in the Proto-Germanic article, and nothing much to add from here, as far as I can see.--Pfold (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- There is already a substantial and detailed section (admittedly unsourced) on Pre-Proto-Germanic in the Proto-Germanic article, and nothing much to add from here, as far as I can see.--Pfold (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to proto Germanic Metallurgist (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, lots of interesting opinions but I don't need to know about the subject, I need to know what y'all want to happen and why. I'm relisting so that a consensus can become clearer and also say that you shouldn't suggest Proto-Germanic as a Redierct/Merge target article because it's a redirect and not an article at all. Always double-check your suggestions before proposing them as this seems to happen here a lot.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Proto-Germanic language with the possibility of a merge. We don't have another article on The evolution of Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic and this article is not an adequate basis for one, being mostly one scholar's (slightly idiosyncratic) theories. This title is used as an alternate name for the Proto-Germanic language at least as often as the sense in the article and the developmental period discussed in it is covered in the Proto-Germanic language article. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Redirect to Proto-Germanic language or perhaps to Proto-Germanic_language#Pre-Proto-Germanic_(Pre-PGmc), per comments above and on the article's talk page. Botterweg (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- Delete or alternatively merge to Proto-Germanic language, if there is useful content that can be salvaged. Paprikaiser (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
- 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.