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

Voiced linguolabial lateral fricative

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

A sound found in no languages is not at all notable. Just because it exists in the ExtIPA does not establish notability either. There is no evidence of this sound being common in disordered speech either. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with moving it to a subpage of my user page. BodhiHarp (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leiden school

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

I looked for reliable independent sources to improve the article with and came up empty. As it stands, it is supported by a single paper by one of the members of said school. My conclusion is that the topic does not meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements.

The passing mentions of the Leiden school I was able to find in academic literature that concern some of the same scholars, such as Frederik Kortlandt, refer to them in light of their ideas in historical linguistics, a topic completely different from the memetic conception of language described here (as the article itself currently notes). This is not enough to save the article by pivoting it to this angle because these mentions of a "Leiden school" are trivial and do not constitute significant coverage. Otherwise, these authors and their contributions are already thoroughly covered on Wikipedia.

Another common mention I could find is that of the Leiden school of anthropology. The article Structural anthropology mistakenly links to this article as the main article on the Leiden school of anthropology. This is a completely different and unrelated topic, which might be notable enough for its own article under the name Leiden school of anthropology (per WP:UCRN).

This article was previously proposed for deletion. I think the deprodding was hasty and done as a misunderstanding of my justifications for deletion. I don't think the article can be improved. The Leiden school's memetic conception of language seems to have been ignored by linguistics scholarship and therefore received no significant coverage in papers other than their own. Antibabelic (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, Philosophy, Psychology, and Social science. Antibabelic (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page could be renamed Leiden school of anthropology, which is clearly notable, and refocused, leaving a hatnote. Or Keep and improve (coverage includes Language Acquisition, Change and Emergence: Essays in Evolutionary Linguistics (2005). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong Press), with another hatnote. Or redirect (various possible targets, including George van Driem. Anyway, deletion does not seem necessary at all. - E. Ux 21:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into sources that could support the current article. However, I'm afraid Language Acquisition is not usable as an independent source, as the chapter mentioning the Leiden school is written by George van Driem. I also don't think it makes sense to redirect to George van Driem's page as opposed to any of the other people associated with the group. Maybe having a disambiguation page linking to Leiden University, Leiden school of anthropology, some Leiden school linguists, and possibly the Leiden School in Dutch art would make the most sense. However, none of these other articles currently exist. Antibabelic (talk) 09:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Contents

Language

Voiced linguolabial lateral fricative

Leiden school

Tanzeem Ul Firdous

Orwellian

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

Prodded articles