Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Language

Tse with long left leg

Tse with long left leg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably does not pass GNG; no significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tse with diaeresis

Tse with diaeresis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article without useful content, was already draftified but recreated by same editor. Doesn't even appear in the List of Cyrillic letters. The same editor created a whole bunch of equally uninformative articles which should be either redirected if there is a good target where they are already mentioned, or deleted.

Fram (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. None of the articles have any sources or useful information. Made-up characters. Procyon117 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, some of them do appear in the infobox of Cyrillic characters, but imparts no meaningful information as to be completely useless anyways. Procyon117 (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britishisation

Britishisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term looks made up, and seems to be OR, we also have other articles (even linked here) for much of this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article can be changed to a more neutral wording, such as "British influence on the world".
In my view, duplicated information is not a sufficient reason to delete this article. British influences on the world have taken place both before and after the British Empire, so having some kind of dedicated resource to discuss this seems fair, and the current Legacy of the British Empire link goes only to a relatively short section in the British Empire article, which is insufficient to communicate the full impact of British influence, as well as implicitly colouring to some extent the overall British impact in more of a Imperial-political light, rather than giving a wholly global overview. In general, it should be possible to learn (or at least be linked to) the same information from different articles on Wikipedia, as this allows for a more comprehensive coverage of any one given topic while still showing the linkages between various topics. Also, there are articles discussing many other forms of -"-isations", such as Americanisation or Croatisation, so having one for a prolifically influential country like Britain seems paramount. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of portmanteaus

List of portmanteaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several of WP policies are in question here:

  • "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" -- this list has many neologisms, and most entries, while intuitive in their derivation, do not or cannot have reliable sources. A good many of the links point to wiktionary, which is not a reliable source in itself.
  • The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear. There is extensive debate here, here and here. Without a clear definition and consensus, the debate of what to include is constant.
  • The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT. The list is unmanageably long with marginal added value: neologisms that are not used beyond the initial introduction, company/brand names, multiple spins on Reaganomics and Brexit, geographic locations (which has its own article with similar sourcing issues), for example.
  • The list is barely encyclopedic. It feels more suitable as a project for linguists (again, still debating the definition) or within a dictionary. A few examples in the parent article(s) are all that is needed to make the point for encyclopedic purposes. While many of the entries here are interesting for "so that's where the term comes from" reasons, collecting them on a single page here does not seem to meet WP's objectives, and collecting them all is not practical or possible. HalJor (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and hoaxes" - sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?
    "The definition of "portmanteau" is inadequately clear" - it has two definitions, the usual meaning ("portmanteau word", or blend, the subject of this list and the linked article) and "portmanteau morph".
    "The page is basically WP:LISTCRUFT" - if it's too long then remove any without sources.
    "The list is barely encyclopedic" - Wikipedia:UNENCYCLOPEDIC.
    I was thinking "Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this should be deleted or redirected to the Wiktionary category, after the references that support an entry in the list are moved to the relevant Wiktionary pages", but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Keep. Peter James (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "sources are cited, are all of them unreliable?" Quite a few are dubious. e.g. "flounder" links here which says "First recorded in 1570–80; perhaps blend of flounce and founder" (inconclusive) and here which adds "or perhaps symbolic, fl- frequently beginning words connected with swift or sudden movement". Also e.g. "sedge" references this which says "First recorded before 900; Middle English segge, Old English secg; akin to saw 1; presumably so named from its sawlike edges" which is similarly inconclusive but doesn't mention the blend. These are just the first two examples I checked in response here. HalJor (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "but then I saw Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words and the example there..." That guideline also notes "the condition being that reliable secondary sources for the topic can be cited" which comes back to one of the earlier points in this nomination. It is far easier to cite a reliable source for the existence of a word (and its spelling) than the definitive etymology of the word (which doesn't always exist beyond being intuitive/OR). The Q-U list is also prone to be far less dynamic than the one under debate here, raising the maintainability concern. HalJor (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought "sedge" was unlikely and removed it after checking the source, that's why I added "that support an entry in the list". Maintainability is no more of a concern here than in any other article that has content added without sources. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Wiktionary already has wikt:Category:English blends (which is already linked from the Portmanteau article), a much more comprehensive list (with almost 7500 (!) entries), and actually suited to a dictionary. It's also worth noting that the current article should probably have been named "English portmanteaus" instead, since it only seems to cover those, but that's beside the point now. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTDICT is as valid here as for List of English words containing Q not followed by U, the example in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of words. Peter James (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more valid here because this is a bare list without any encyclopedic content...any such background content can and already does exist at the main article on blend words, rendering this unnecessary. As already pointed out, the Wiktionary category already contains ~7500 entries (and that doesn't include all the company names and stuff), rendering this pretty unmanageable. It's also got generally ambiguous inclusion criteria, since what constitutes a blend word is somewhat subjective. The comparison between the two cases isn't particularly appropriate, which is why articles should be judged on their own merits. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The definition of "portmanteau" seems WP:OBVIOUS to me, but any confusion can be cleared up here by Merriem-Webster. Portmanteaus and blends are synonymous terms. Also, with 871,806 pageviews and 252 daily views, the article has to be providing some kind of value that merits inclusion. Enix150 (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For something with an "obvious" definition, there are countless edge cases, along with plenty of words with uncertain/theoretical etymologies. See also WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:POPULARPAGE as arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an interesting essay, but in no way does it define official policy or guidelines. As I was saying before, most of these "uncertain/theoretical etymologies" appear to be quite WP:OBVIOUS to the average English-speaking reader. Enix150 (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep linking WP:OBVIOUS for some reason, but that's part of an essay about writing better articles, and it talks about including enough, but not too much detail to provide context to readers who might not otherwise know about it. This has absolutely no bearing on the article in question, which is whether or not this is a list that warrants an article (hint: it isn't). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I removed two bad entries. Any without their own dedicated article, or enough coverage in a different article, should be removed. Dream Focus 13:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You gave no actual rationale behind your "keep" vote, nor have you addressed the specific concerned raised in the nomination or further on in the discussion. Further, you haven't explained why things as disparate as animals, companies, random objects, etc etc, should be grouped in the same list merely because their name shares some superficial linguistic characteristic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If everything listed has its own article, its a valid navigational and informational list. Dream Focus 01:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not, because having an index of articles based on a superficial characteristic of the words used to represent any underlying concepts is not a valid navigational purpose. We'd no more have a full alphabetical listing of all the articles on Wikipedia (which would actually be more useful). This is not a valid keep rationale. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDICT. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria for inclusion are clear. The list is not complete, but this is not a valid reason for deletion. Overall, having a list of such examples seems to be helpful for a reader who does not know much about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per INDISCRIMINATE and NOTDICT. Specifically, since Wikipedia articles are organized based on concepts and not the words used to name those concepts, indexing articles by some quality of the words used to name them is out of scope. In addition, per WP:LISTCRITERIA, editors should not "synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources." In other words, unless reliable sources discuss e.g. Hvaldimir, leopon, and crocoduck as members of a coherent category of things, Wikipedia should not imply that such a category exists. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course RS discuss portmanteau words as a concept. And since we have a big page about portmanteau words, having such a list as a supplement seems to be reasonable. We have many lists that illustrate concepts, there is nothing wrong with this. This page is not a dictionary. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's the rub. Sources from fields such as linguistics discuss blend words as words. In linguistics and allied fields, words are a concept of interest. Compare this to e.g. List of mammal genera: plenty of reliable sources in biology discuss mammals as animals. I don't know of any sources, however, that discuss e.g. animals with blend-word names as animals, nor food with blend-word names as a style of cuisine, nor political movements with blended names as a political philosophy, etc. In fields such as biology, cooking, or politics, word formation is not usually a concept of interest. The grouping in this article is based on labels rather than concepts (NOTDICT) and created by Wikipedians (WP:SYNTH). Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a clearly notable list, the topic being discussed as a set in numerous sources (ranging from articles like https://www.nationalworld.com/news/offbeat/14-portmanteaus-words-and-their-meanings-such-as-brexit-netflix-podcast-pokemon-and-metaverse-4107705 to books like Stone, L. (2015). Language for Life: Where Linguistics Meets Teaching. Taylor & Francis;Goddard, C. (2018). Ten Lectures on Natural Semantic MetaLanguage: Exploring Language, Thought and Culture Using Simple, Translatable Words. or Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending (see In particular the article "Portmanteaus as general templates" (2012). De Gruyter Mouton. and so on), easily available online for those who don't have a library. -Mushy Yank. 20:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a valid source demonstrating any kind of notability, and yours is not a valid keep rationale. You can't just wave some low-quality listicle clickbait churn content like this around and go omg omg NLIST NLIST haha keep. The overall topic of portmanteaus is notable, which is clear, and no one is remotely disputing, and that's all you get from your other sources, the overall topic, not a list. The question is whether Wikipedia should try to compile a list of every single goddamn one of them. And the answer is, no of course not. Because among other reasons (repeat after me, everyone), Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and you haven't addressed this concern, or any of the others raised in the course of the discussion. Just because a topic is notable does not mean that Wikipedia editors need to compile a list of every goddamn single example of such topic (a list rife with edge cases to boot). 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:NLIST, a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. And portmanteaus have been covered as a group or set by multiple independent reliable sources, including 1, 2, and 3. WP:NOTDICT is not violated here: the guideline notes that a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), but this isn't really about a set of meaning but rather is a list of items that happen to be words. And WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE doesn't seem to be an issue here; the set is pretty well-defined to be only those with Wikipedia articles—a perfectly permissible thing in light of WP:LSC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:57, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Language