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

Yoruba Name Shortforms

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

"Yoruba Name Shortforms" is not a term that exists. I find one source mentioning shortened names in Yoruba society, but this is clearly not a major topic. Article is full of unsupported material. Neither scholarly source cited actually exists, making me suspect LLM hallucination. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Africa, and Nigeria. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yoruba name shortforms is a concept that exist and is well know, as you can see as you found a source. You can say shortened names, abbreviations etc, but it means a similar thing. Not being a main topic is a subject of opinion since that can be said about many topics on Wikipedia; in addition to African related topics still lagging. It is relevant, and I think its relevant enough for a Wikipedia page. I made some mistakes with the some of the sources I was trying to cite, got some things wrong, which I am currently fixing. This to me doesn't seem to be grounds for a deletion suggestion. Dolpina (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since they've been removed, those unreal references are:

Oyetade, S. (1995). Naming Practices in Yoruba Society. Names: A Journal of Onomastics, 43(1), 35–46.
Ikotun, R. O. (2014). A Morphophonemic Analysis of Yoruba Personal Names. Lengua y Habla (Redalyc), 18. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:14, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the creator definitely is focused on Yoruba and African topics, but this is clearly a junk article. Links to nothing and is barely sourced. The dead giveaway for LLM is the "Formation Patterns" section. Metallurgist (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yoruba names have short forms and the concept of course exists, but who termed it “Yoruba name short forms”? This looks made up while also being an AI regurgitation. My main rationale for deletion is that the subject does not pass WP:GNG though. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian toponyms in Zakarpattia Oblast

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

I doubt this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Hungary. Chidgk1 (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:01, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete or merge to Hungarian toponyms in Ukraine? Or List of Ukrainian place names of Hungarian origin?Metallurgist (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greek exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

Cleanup and sourcing was discussed in the 2007 deletion discussion - I think anyone who wants to cleanup or source this has had enough time by now Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Greece. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms mass AfD as well. Warudo (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. I'd also preserve places in Turkey from which Greeks were expelled. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I think your approach is a bit too narrow, I agree with the broad strokes. That being said, if this is deleted, I have no reason to believe that the bits you are saying to keep will be saved. Unfortunately List of Greek exonyms in Turkey has been deleted, granted based on the AfD it may have had quality issues. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Names of Belarusian places in other languages

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Belarus. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Are there any good ATDs for this? You are right that it isn't very encyclopedic, but it is a great index that I would love to be kept in some form. Is there another Wikimedia project that it would fit better on? I would like it to continue to exist, even though this isn't the right place for it. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How do you use this table and how know the quality is "great" when there are no sources? Is that because you checked a sample by flipping round language links? Perhaps a Belarussian reading this would like to translate it to Belarussian Wikipedia? However I don’t know their rules. Another alternative if you need it in bulk might be to make a Wikidata query. Or could AI nowadays flip round the language links on your request? Or are you saying it is useful to you because some articles don't exist in other languages? In which case without sources how can you trust the info? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to realize that the Yiddish translations are maybe a bit rougher than I thought. I was going to manually update Wikidata items, but I've decided against it due to the lack of citations. Sorry to bother you. Ike Lek (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian exonyms in Istria

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

TadejM says it is notable but with only one cite on the Italian article I am not sure Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Italy. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists, Croatia, and Slovenia. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Istria has a sizable Italian population. These names are used in the areas with the Italian minority and are commonly mentioned in their media. The Italian Wikipedia provides several citations for them. --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Italian Wikipedia has more than one citation. I think you may have missed them as they as separate from the "Bibliografia" section. Because of both the history of Italians in Istria, and the current modern significance of the names, Italian exonyms for places in Istria is a notable topic, and a list is not inappropriate. – Ike Lek (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NOTDICT. There are some exonym articles that are encyclopedic, such as Chinese exonyms, but that article contains well-sourced contextual information ~~and mostly restricts the list to exonyms that have received secondary coverage.~~ The Italian version of this article appears to rely mainly on primary sources. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sourcing for the list in Chinese exonyms is pretty bad; the list seems to be arbitrarily selected. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states Some other, non-glossary lists of words can also yield an encyclopedic page, such as List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited. (emphasis mine) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:54, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And even with secondary sources, there's still a WP:NOTDICT argument against having exhaustive lists of exonyms. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting this; a list of toponyms seems less crazy than I originally thought, assuming that sources exist, even though it would be quite large. It could be eventually merged into one or more general lists such as List of locations in Istria County. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coming back to this, I find myself reconsidering whether these names are truly exonyms at all, as many have official status and are used locally by ethnic Italians. If the page isn't even about true exonyms, this changes things significantly. – Ike Lek (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are actually endonyms.[1] --TadejM ^{my talk} 11:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the same is true for the region of Dalmatia and a similar article (List of Italian exonyms in Dalmatia) was recently deleted by PROD. IF the outcome of this AfD is anything other than delete, then the same should apply to that list. Giuliotf (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 74 and 75 of this may be of note here [2]. Ike Lek (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Czech exonyms

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

When I language link through to the first entry Albánský Bělehrad it seems to be historical rather than a current exonym. I cannot find the article info in the cite. Also I don’t think this is notable. Also Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Czech Republic. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The page description does a decent job differentiating between exonyms and transliterations; however it does not always seem to uphold this differentiation in the list contents. – Ike Lek (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as there are other lists of European exonyms, I don't see any reason why this specific one should be deleted. Or there should be one discussion about deleting them all. The page needs significant improvement (e.g. deleting the aforementioned Albánský Bělehrad), but poor condition is not a reason for deletion. And the page is not a dictionary. FromCzech (talk) 10:15, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was one discussion about deleting them all, in March 2024. It failed (no consensus) as too sweeping; some (Chinese exonyms, Arabic exonyms) are less dictionary-like than others. So now Chidgk1 is nominating them singly. —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but a bundle of European exonym lists, maybe starting with just 5-10 of them, could still make sense. I respect what Chidgk1 is doing, even though I am often arguing to keep them. Such is bureaucracy, I suppose. Ike Lek (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. I'd also preserve places formerly under the Crown of Bohemia. —Tamfang (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese exonyms

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

Although the Portuguese article has lots of citations I am not sure that is enough to show notability on English Wikipedia Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a particularly strong exonym page, although I was disappointed to see it lacked sections for Angola and Mozambique, which would likely serve a more encyclopedic purpose than France or Greece. The Portuguese Wikipedia references seem adequate to me to demonstrate notability. If consensus is keep, ping me and I will try to make some improvements to it in the next couple weeks. - Ike Lek (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a prolific contributor to this article and a native speaker of European Portuguese, I have no reservations about writing the sections on Angola and Mozambique, with a view to enhancing the utility of the article. It is imperative to note that greater care will be exercised in the near future to ensure the inclusion of additional sources. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT: most exonym articles are indiscriminate lists of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign names to its own phonology and/or orthography. If such lists were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those that are unrelated to the endonym or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep. —Tamfang (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with our opinion. Individuals who do not possess proficiency in Portuguese will encounter significant challenges in adapting toponyms to the appropriate Portuguese phonology and orthography. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then should en.wp include glossaries of everything that a learner of Portuguese might need to mention? —Tamfang (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. toweli (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these exonym articles are generally not notable Metallurgist (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a bold claim to make without providing any evidence or rationale to back it up. Ike Lek (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a prolific contributor to this article and a specialist in linguistics, as well as a native European Portuguese speaker, I posit that articles of this nature are necessary on account of their educational value, cross-linguistic and cross-cultural navigation, and their potential to facilitate translation and multilingual writing. Moreover, they ensure searchability and disambiguation for those who wish to navigate not only any list of Portuguese exonyms, but also any other language, including even endangered languages. Cantrusthestory (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cantrusthestory Thanks for your expertise. Could you possibly add some citations to this article? Perhaps some of those on the Portuguese article. Nowadays most citations (except pdfs) can be easily added by using the “automatic” option in Visual Editor. If you have any difficulty with adding cites please ask or just add them in the right place in a rudimentary way and some helpful Wikignome will tidy them later. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Russian exonyms

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

Might not be notable. Previous deletion discussions were not specific. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Exonym lists are only relevant for areas that the nation in question controlled at some point. What Russians call Jericho, however, is unencyclopedic trivia. Geschichte (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that is the only time they are relevant, but I get the broad strokes. In that case, action should be taken to preserve the Azerbaijan section, as it is potentially useful. Ike Lek (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Geschichte, except that "controlled" is narrower than my (vague) criterion; I would allow Latin names for many places that were never in the Roman Empire, for example. —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I partially agree, but I disagree with the irrelevance of Jericho. In fact I would argue that for many languages the exonyms for places in the Holy Land are likely notable.

As for this specific list, a large part of it is merely transliterations and phonetically similar names. I would keep the list but trim it down to exonyms notable due to either a connection to the country or culture or due to being a significant departure from the native name (as one would point out, say, that the Italian name for Munich is Monaco di Baviera). Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 13:04, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources no justification. In most cases, you can just look at the other languages of an article to get exonyms. Metallurgist (talk) 21:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serrano dialect

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

I can't find any information about something specifically called the serrano dialect, either in English or in Spanish. "Serrano" in Spanish means "mountain range", so the term "dialecto serrano" is very generic, akin to "city slang". It does not seem to refer a specific dialect from a specific place. In fact, a quick Google search shows that many dialects have been called "dialecto serrano" in different Spanish speaking countries. It does not satisfy the notability requirements for a Wikipedia article. JohnMizuki (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm sorry, but I felt obliged to deprod this. Proposed deletion is only for non-controversial topics, and other than politics and religion, nothing is more controversial that whether a certain dialect exists. I have No opinion on the subject. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I didn't claim the dialect doesn't exist. I stated that nothing SPECIFICALLY called "Serrano dialect" exists. Once again: the expression "dialecto serrano" in Spanish is a generic term, that has been used in different countries to refer to different dialects. It is the same as the expression "city slang". "Serrano" does not refer to a specific geographic location and is used to refer to any mountain range. This is equivalent to creating an article titled "city slang" that says that "city slang" is the dialect of the city of Paris. It makes no sense whatsoever. JohnMizuki (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of German exonyms in the Greater Poland Voivodeship

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

not notable Chidgk1 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of German names for places in Poland. Kiwipete (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this merge could make more sense the other way around. Ike Lek (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:45, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per consistent consensus in similar AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ukrainian exonyms These kinds of lists fail WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTCATALOG. They are indiscriminate compilations of name variants without sufficient reliable secondary sources or encyclopedic context. Exonyms are language artifacts better suited for dictionaries or linguistic glossaries, not standalone encyclopedia entries. Cameremote (talk) @gonisulaimann 01:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two out of the three AfDs you list as "consistent consensus" closed as no consensus. Ike Lek (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't even be merged because this is explicitly a sub-list of List of German names for places in Poland, which has sub-lists for all the other provinces except for one which was literally PROD'd 9 hours ago. At best, the full list could be arranged to be separated based on province, but there should not be separate sub-lists for the different provinces. Weirdguyz (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. It seems that there might be a stronger argument that German language placenames are more notable in some parts of Poland than others due to the history. I think I see this in some references, but I don't have the knowledge to assess them. Even then, I suspect a rearrange/merge in context at List of German names for places in Poland makes more sense than repeating the same information over several other lists. JMWt (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge as above !Metallurgist (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian exonyms

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

Previous deletion discussions were not specifically about this article. Discussion on the talk page shows this article may be misinformation or disinformation. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Croatia. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty of scholarly discussion on the subject, it just needs to be sourced. [3] [4] [5] [6] and this notes Croatian exonyms are not necessarily consistent, so I don't necessarily think the "disinformation" tag is correct. SportingFlyer T·C 11:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added two sources to the page. SportingFlyer T·C 14:17, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Like most such lists, it is a potentially endless collection of examples of the trivial and obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words, including names, to its own phonology and/or orthography. If it were confined to examples about which something more could be said, e.g. those unrelated to the endonym, or distorted by false etymology, I'd say keep it. —Tamfang (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument would imply every exonym article on the site should be deleted and ignores the fact this is a validly sourced list per WP:NLIST and the sources above, and ignores that there are several exonyms in the article, especially Italian ones but also Romanian and Turkish, which are unrelated to the endonym. SportingFlyer T·C 21:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So let the article concentrate on those, and annotate them, rather than burying them in the trivial. (Validly sourced trivia are still trivia.) (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then the article shouldn't be deleted, then. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not if it might hypothetically someday become worth keeping, right? —Tamfang (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Metallurgist (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustani kinship terms

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

Unnecessary as Wiktionary has Cat:ur:Family and Cat:hi:Family. Note that this is not the same as Chinese kinship or Irish kinship as it doesn't explain the system, rather simply lists various kinship terms which isn't really encyclopædic. "Hindustani kinship" would perhaps be an encyclopædic topic, but not this. — Ö S M A N (talk · contribs) 11:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Association of Conference Interpreters

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

Fails notability. I have found no reliable sources, and no significant coverage beyond their own website. PROD'd by LibStar but contested by an IP. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and Japan. Weirdguyz (talk) 12:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is required for sufficient notability? The organization is oeprated primarily in Japanese but has held activities outside of Japan.

Example:

https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/events/workshop-japan-association-conference-interpreters-jaci-02-27-2020

Referenced in an academic publication as well.

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9780429297878-16/conference-interpreting-japan-kayoko-takeda-kayo-matsushita 2404:7A80:3021:18F0:FC93:A514:9B96:4A9B (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability sets out the requirements for notability. Notability is not determined by the organisation itself but by the sources available for it. For a subject to be notable there must be significant coverage, which is reliable and independent of the source. Weirdguyz (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the google news comes from https://www.middlebury.edu/ . Unless someone can find indepth coverage in Japanese, this fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google throws up sources talking about the organisation, including this academic article https://incontextjournal.org/index.php/incontext/article/download/78/44 , this article about contests the organisation holds https://www.icu.ac.jp/en/news/2406281000.html , and this event advice company https://eventflare.io/expert-advice/tokyo/top-rated-translators-and-interpreters-in-tokyo-for-corporate-events , which seems like enough to go on with. I’m not going to put info from them into the article yet, because I’m getting a bit sick of fixing up articles just for them to be deleted anyway, but if the decision is Keep, I’ll come back and do it in a week or so. Absurdum4242 (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also. Can’t get access just now, but the academic publication that poster Starting 2404… etc, posted seems to be legit too, though I’d need to crack it open to be 100% sure. Absurdum4242 (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Eventflare article is definitely not reliable, being little more than a Listicle advertisement. The International Christian University article is dubiously reliable, and also is not SIGCOV for JACI itself, as it is about two students who received prizes from a JACI hosted competition. The Tsurata article comes the closest to being good, but I don't think two paragraphs is SIGCOV, and regardless Tsurata is not independent as she is also a member of JACI. Weirdguyz (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to check, why is it you think that the International Christian University article is of dubious reliability? Have they been doing some dodgy tabloid stuff I’m unaware of? Also, I can’t see how coverage of events held by an organisation, and other things an organisation does don’t count as SigCov?

As for the Tsurata article, which was published in a refereed academic journal I’ll note, while Tsurata is herself a member, she was not in this case speaking for the organisation, and is writing more generally about several organisations in the sector in Japan. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the reliability of the ICU article, it's frankly the quality of the article which makes me doubt the reliability. Also, the reason it's not SIGCOV is there just isn't enough about the organisation. Sure, SIGCOV doesn't need to be the main focus of an article, but it needs to still be in-depth, which the ICU article isn't.

And regardless of whether she was speaking for the organisation or not, Tsurata is a member of JACI and is not independent when writing about it. Weirdguyz (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That…. Seems like a real stretch Re Tsurata’s independence. Are you suggesting Americans aren’t independent when talking about America? And doctors are independent when talking about medical bodies they belong to - the AMA say? Absurdum4242 (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am suggesting that a member of an organisation is not independent when writing about that organisation. Are you suggesting that Americans aren't independent when talking about America is an astonishingly vacuous argument. And yes, a doctor talking about a body they are a member of is similarly not independent. I think you are misunderstanding why I'm pointing these things out. WP:GNG specifically requires independent and reliable SIGCOV to establish notability. A source written by a member of an organisation cannot be used to establish notability for that organisation. Sure, you can carefully use that source for information within the article, but it is not independent and so does not contribute to notability. Weirdguyz (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the linked sources provide independent SIGCOV. This organization does not seem notable. CarringtonMist (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish exonyms for places in Norway

AfDs for this article:

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

Uncited and not notable. In the past 12 years an enormous amount of uncited info has been added to the internet. So at least we could delete some. Wikipedians opinion on uncited articles may have changed since the last discussion. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lists, Finland, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should be considered alongside Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finnish exonyms for places in Norway: Finnmark (2nd nomination), since that article was split from this one. Where has WP:BEFORE been done? "...uncited info has been added to the internet [so] at least we could delete some" is not a valid reason for deletion; the issue is, do sources for this article exist? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name is wrong, since the Finnish names are usually endonyms: either Forest Finnish or Kvenish origin. Purely Finnish exonyms can be found from Finnish exonym database. List of Kvenish names can be found from a database (see also the "about" page). Discussion about the place names can be found in this article in Kielikello (in Finnish), and this article (in Norwegian). Also here: Språkrådet. The official toponymic guidelines also discuss Kven names. The topic is notable, although there's not much of an article here, and it needs a better name. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some discussion about Forest Finnish names: https://kielikello.fi/kaskisuomalaisista-metsasuomalaisiksi/ Perhaps rename as ~~Kven and Finnish place names in Norway~~ Kven place names. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position here: I don't find a mere list of place names appropriate per WP:NOT (and WP:NOTDICT), but an article that discusses how those names emerged, their legal status etc. is fine. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least this one, unlike most exonym listicles, gives itself a boundary: those names authoritatively recognized, in a limited field. —Tamfang (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 14:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This isnt even an article in Finnish wiki, altho as above at least it is limited and grounded in a real world consideration. Metallurgist (talk) 21:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've expanded the article to focus exclusively on Kven place names, as that appears to be the best-documented topic. I'm not opposed to including information on Finnish exonyms or Forest Finnish place names, but for now I've left those out. I didn't make any changes to the list of place names, though I think it should be trimmed or at least organized according to some principle. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very much a notable topic in connection to Norwegian language policy and Norwegianization, as the sources in the article show. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:31, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of Edinburgh School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences

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

No independent RS on the page. Nothing to suggest this university department has independent notability outwith of University of Edinburgh JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Philosophy, Schools, Psychology, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge Not notable for a standalone article and relevant content on its existence can be merged/added to the main university article. Coldupnorth (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted. Lilith 908 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking third party sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Visual Language Interpreters of Canada

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

Declined prod. The added source is just a 1 quote from the president of CASLI. Fails WP:ORG for lack of SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I greatly improved the article. This association is the national, non-profit certifying body for professional American Sign Language-English, Quebec Sign Language-French interpreters in Canada. It's been active since 1979 and provides a crucial service which is notable. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 17:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 of the added sources are its own website and primary. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Providing a "crucial service" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant coverage has now been demonstrated spanning roughly four and a half decades, from publications across the country. This organization is a clear GNG pass, and more sources are likely to be found from here. MediaKyle (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess source depth and independence
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per last relist comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A look at some of the sources. This one, this and this include a 1 line mentions and are not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This one merely confirms that Ontario Association of Sign Language Interpreters supports CASLI members. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the ones under Further reading? -- MediaKyle (talk) 10:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Hmm, seems Alright for a separate page unless disproven. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain your vote "seems Alright". You don't seem to have addressed sourcing concerns. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article has been sufficiently improved and expanded. Eulersidentity (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch exonyms

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

Previous discussions don’t seem to be specific to this article - talk page says it is rubbish Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Netherlands. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dutch dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelis (talk • contribs) 16:59, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this meets the notability requirements of WP:NLIST.

Also, there is ample precedent for this type of article; we have 63 of these articles per Category:Lists of exonyms.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:46, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. An attempt to delete all of them, a year or two ago, was rejected as too sweeping (some of them, particularly Arabic exonyms, are less WP:DICT than others). —Tamfang (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - What's the harm in having it?

Ike Lek (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the harm in having a list of Dutch words for spices or bird species or truck engine parts? —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:13, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

' Delete Not really notable on English Wikipedia. Metallurgist (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Language

Prodded articles