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.
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:
Almost exclusively from a single source, and fails to establish WP:N. Practically zero mention of the concept outside of that single source and veers dangerously into WP:PROFRINGE territory with the WP:OR links to fringe theory language families like Nostratic, which aren't mentioned in the source. Without establishing notability this seems to not really belong here, and I'm unable to verify that this is at all taken seriously in linguistics.
For anyone unfamiliar with this topic:
"The M-T pattern is the most common argument for several proposed long-distance language families, such as the Nostratic hypothesis, that include Indo-European as a subordinate branch. Nostratic has even been called 'Mitian' after these pronouns."
Nostratic is emphatically a fringe theory within linguistics and is not mentioned in any of the sources, and this article seems heavily like WP:ADVOCACY. Any sources linking Nostratic to M-T Pronouns are inherently fringe sources, but even then many of the claims here are entirely un-cited. It doesn't seem this article can be saved. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Feels like Original Research to me. Only two sources though the Google search gives plenty sources. Whether they back up the article and are reliable or not I have no idea. Not my field — Iadmc♫talk 10:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating for Nostratic. This is simply a piece of evidence claimed by those who do, and Nostratic has been deemed appropriate for a WP article.
As noted, the M-T pronominal pattern is well attested in the lit. I relied on a single source to create the article, but others could be added.
Some conclusions drawn from the pattern, such as Nostratic, are FRINGE. Yet we have articles on them. WALS is most certainly not a fringe source. IMO it's worth discussing one of the principal pieces of evidence given for fringe hypotheses when we have articles on them. A similar pattern in America, N-M, has been used to justify the FRINGE hypothesis of Amerind. Yet it is discussed in non-fringe sources, which conclude that it's only statistically significant for western North America, and disappears as a statistical anomaly if we accept the validity of Penutian and Hokan. That's worth discussing, because it cuts the legs out from under Amerind; without it, people might find the argument for Amerind to be convincing.
I have yet to find a credible explanation for the M-T pattern. But the lack of an explanation for a phenomenon is not reason to not cover it. There are many things we can't convincingly explain, but that's the nature of science: we don't refuse to cover them. — kwami (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ seems to be motivated to object to this because they think I have a PROFRINGE statement on my user page. What I have is a sarcastic statement, one that other WP linguists have laughed over because it is obviously ridiculous. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ fails to see the sarcasm.
An equivalent might be to say that our personalities are governed by Arcturus, which is in Gemini; therefore we're all Geminis and have share a single hive mind. That wouldn't be advocacy for astrology. (Though I'm sure people have come up with more imaginative ways of mocking it.) — kwami (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not exactly obvious sarcasm when you’re making articles that advocate the perspectives of fringe theorists, but sorry if I missed that. It wasn’t my intention to have it sound like an attack. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating the perspectives of fringe theorists, I'm describing a pattern that they have used to justify their theories. I've done the same for Amerind; there the conclusion is that if we accept Penutian and Hokan as valid clades, then the statistical anomaly (and thus the purported evidence for Amerind) disappears. I don't know of any similar conclusion in this case, but the pattern remains and is worth discussing if we're going to have articles on Nostratic and the like (and we have quite a few of those articles!)
What comes off as advocacy to me is covering FRINGE theories in multiple articles and then refusing to discuss the evidence, when consideration of that evidence would cast doubt on the theories. That would be like refusing to discuss the evidence posited for astrology or UFOs, leaving readers with only the perspective of advocates to go by. — kwami (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is WP:Original research, by your own words, and has no place in the encyclopedia. Use a blog to promote your personal research. Delete — Iadmc♫talk 12:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nostraticists have a long and storied history of claiming basically anything they can as evidence. These claims aren’t taken seriously among linguists for good reason. I’m unaware of a single piece of scholarship that’d pass WP:RS (or even not those that’d pass) claiming this as evidence for Nostratic, and frankly I find your accusations here inappropriate so I’ll bow out of engaging and let the rest of the AfD play out. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note— kwami is the creator and sole contributor to this article— Iadmc♫talk 12:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm speaking as a non-expert, but I would like to get more context on the matter. Do such patterns, outside of advocating for certain theories, have any value? Could, for example, there be a place in the Nostratic article to add a few more of these details to the Proposed features section? I'm not familiar with the sources in the article, what is their reputation generally? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as credible sources go, which is just the one page linked as the main source in the article, it's a statistically noted feature but no signifficance has yet been attributed to it. Certainly not to Nostratic. Nostratic is itself a fringe theory and likely doesn't need more on the proposed features as none of the proposed features are real, and nobody is proposing a link to Nostratic because of this as far a sourcing goes except the author of the article and perhaps some blogs. This article has, frankly, some big "teach the controversy" energy.
@Austronesier is a little less viscerally anti-Nostratic-on-wikipedia and may have a different perspective, however. Also, I think this should probably be my last reply here lest I WP:BLUDGEON.
Keep, or probably expand and modify its scope to include the other notable pronoun pattern (N-M) along the lines of the WALS page cited in the article. As is, it is underreferenced, but we can easily get more sources by following the trail of Johanna Nichols's paper on this subject and subsequent papers by other scholars who take a typological look at the matter. Sure, this pronoun pattern is cited as evidence by Nostraticists, but they don't own the topic. Yet, you can hardly leave Lord Voldemort, uhm I mean Nostratic unmentioned in relation to this notable topic, because most mainstream linguist writing about the topic of global pronoun patterns will at least mention the fact that Nostraticists have tried to build a language relationship hypothesis out this real observable. You can't blame observables for the bad and motorious hypotheses that are made to explain them.
Finally, this is not advocacy, and to believe so earns you a megatrout, @Warren. Kwami has built literally hundreds of language family and subgroup articles in WP from a mainstream perspective, generally leaning towards a "splitter" approach (ala Hammarström or Güldemann). Ok, unfamiliarity with kwami's role in this project is one thing, but jeez, labelling an important piece of Nichols's research as fringe just because of an indirect association to the Nostratic hypothesis is a knee jerk that makes the knee jerks in WP:FTN look like an élevé. –Austronesier (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For all the "delete" !votes because of WP:OR issues, there's WP:NOTCLEANUP. Here's more sources covering the topic:
"Selection for m : T pronominals in Eurasia"[1] by Johanna Nichols (co-author of the WALS chapter)
"Personal pronouns in Core Altaic"[2] by Juha Janhunen
Needless to say that these book chapters do not promote or endorse long-range fringe speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to 'M-T and N-M pronoun patterns' might be worthwhile. The latter is already written and referenced, so we only need to merge it in. Nichols et al. note that these are the only two patterns that jump out in a global perspective. There are others at a local scale, of course, such as the Č-Kw pattern in the western Amazon, but these tend to not be all that contentious as arguments for the classification of poorly attested or reconstructed families. They also don't lend themselves to fringe ideas, because really, who but a historical linguist (or the people themselves) care whether Piaroa and Ticuna are related?
I wonder whether a Pama-Nyungan-like pronoun pattern extends beyond that family, as a pan-Australian feature. If it does, that -- and how people explain it if they don't believe it's genetic -- might be worth discussing as well. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I took your suggestion and merged in the N-M stuff and moved the article to M–T and N–M pronoun patterns. I haven't had a chance yet to incorporate your sources, and this week's going to be rather busy, but it's on my to-do list. — kwami (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is definitely original research. The article presents this as related to Nostratic and Etruscan language families, neither of which are mentioned in the source the article is based on. A lot of the article needs to get deleted, probably. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very least, this is a non-notable topic propped up by a healthy dose of OR. There's a single source for the main article topic along with who-knows-how-much-personal-observation in the article currently, such as "However, doubling the number of pronouns to be considered in this way increases the possibility of coincidental resemblance, and decreases the likelihood that the resulting pattern is significant." Where does this come from? Where does any of these statistical conclusions come from? It's not in the source. This is a pretty concerning case and may warrant further scrutiny. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this isn't a fringe theory, but it does seem hard to find secondary sources on. Keep assuming any other secondary sources exist. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, make that Delete unless at least one more secondary source can be identified, after looking at the article again. Almost all of it is not based on the source it actually uses, and it seems difficult to write an article given nobody seems to have any other sources than that one. Mrfoogles (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a good idea. The topic is notable outside of the Nostraticist bubble. The author that has most contributed to our understanding of the topic, Johanna Nichols, does not endorse long-range speculations. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brief mention simply referring back to Nichols again; there's not the sort of in-depth analysis that you'd expect for a notable topic...or any analysis for that matter. The OR/SYNTH here is strewn so inextricably throughout the article, and the topic so niche, contributed by a single author, that cleanup seems exceedingly improbable. At the very least, WP:TNT applies here if anyone thinks that they can demonstrate notability. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inextricable? Don't turn subjective unwillingness to extract the obvious bits of OR/SYNTH into an intrinsic property of the text. WP:TNT is not an excuse for laziness. –Austronesier (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please do not move articles while their AfD is open. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎ 11:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning delete, but I think kwami is right that there can be articles about arguments used for dubious language families, and I think calling the article "original research" is overly critical. However, the WALS map is not clearly about an argument used for certain proposed families, but about the distribution of sounds in certain pronouns - whether or not these have been used as arguments for Nostratic/Altaic/Indo-Uralic or whatever - at least in my reading. I would like to see more sources that are specifically about the pattern, otherwise it seems to get undue weight by having an article. The topic could instead be covered under the name of "(Personal) pronouns in Nostratic/etc", which would make sense under a very different structure (so not sure a move would be useful, or?), and maybe even better to start it as a subsection in the relevant proposed family's article. This would probably better reflect the context that the pattern is discussed in, in the sources. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 18:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG seems like an list disambiguation. Both articles link to each other in the lead. Could possible be redirected to Westron language? Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be real, but so trivial as to not merit a mention in Bilbo's article as it stands now. Is there more context to these supposed names that would fill out a stub, or another article that explains the context here? Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly real and readily sourced, and a reminder that we should certainly make more of Westron names, in fact the whole language, throughout the WikiProject. The prime concern across the project has been notability, given that there was a large legacy of what seemed to be fan-created articles with (at best) primary sourcing. Now that that's been fixed, looking at the development of names and of characters, all the legendarium side of things, is an obvious next step: i.e. we should add the "Labingi" element to many articles. I'd hope it'd go without saying that you can't decide notability by looking at Wikipedia's gaps, but perhaps that's worth repeating here. Tolkien devoted enormous effort to the names in multiple languages, complete with Pseudotranslation from Westron to English; scholars are starting to catch up with these legendarium (Silmarillion without italics) aspects, so there is potentially large scope for article improvement in this direction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Judging from the description in Template:Surname and many examples I see, it seems that name pages do work differently with regard to notability requirements as compared to "normal" articles. They seem to be more or less a special type of disambiguation page. Is that correct? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, they are basically navigation lists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a name page this does not need to fullfill WP:GNG as discussed above. I think a sentence adding the Westron version of the name to Bilbo Baggins in the way it does appear at Frodo Baggins#Concept and creation is warranted, and can be verfied by both primary and secondary sources. (I only now have seen that the name appears in the very beginning at Bilbo Baggins, so I am not sure if more is necessary for the name as such. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)) Partially answering Jclemens' question, I did see small pieces of further context, which are probably best included in other articles: The Hobbit Encyclopedia, p. 201, states how we see that the connection between Baggins and Bag End is deliberate, because it also appears in the Westron names. Probably best suited for the Bag End article. This snippet view from Myth Print magazine has criticism on the introduction of the Westron names, referring to Maura Labingi, as they can detract from appreciating the names commonly appearing in the books, like Frodo Baggins. Probably best suited for the Pseudotranslation in The Lord of the Rings article. This article has a bit of commentary on how the names Baggins and Labingi, which both can be related to (to) bag/(to) pocket, are suitable for the character of Bilbo (and Frodo as his heir), i.e. suited for the Bilbo Baggins article. I don't quite get what kind of publication that is, though. Daranios (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of the two things disambiguated are not common names for the characters by a longshot. Per WP:NAMELIST, articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. I assume this also applies to fictional characters, making this DAB page blatantly violate policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I think WP:NAMELIST refers to a very different case than ours here, with their example of Lincoln (disambiguation): If there is a term with a number of different meanings, which includes both persons' names and other things, then one should only include very prominent examples (like Abraham Lincoln) in the main disambiguation page, while other persons' names should be spun out into a page like Lincoln (name). Here, we only have names of (fictional) persons. Secondly, the guideline says why it exists in the first place: To prevent disambiguation pages from getting too long. That is very much not a problem here. Daranios (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is presented as a name list, and uses the templates that are intended for real life people. So I have no choice but to judge it as one - if I don't, it has even less of a claim for existence due to violating WP:PTM. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see this also as a name list. WP:NAMELIST, despite its title, does not deal with how to construct name lists, but how to deal with regular disambiguation pages which also contain names, and the relationship between regular disambiguation pages and name lists. The part you have quoted therefore does not apply to our name list here, as is directly present in that part: ...should be listed at the disambiguation page.... So no violation of that guideline here. Daranios (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 02:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Transwiki. Editors attained a consensus that this content is not suitable for Wikipedia, and the text of the pages have been copied and moved to Wiktionary. In light of the deletion policy, the pages will be converted into soft redirects to their corresponding entries on Wiktionary. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 03:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the article has been reviewed twice since its publication last month and has been rated List-class by the first reviewer. Ctxz2323 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ther are 4 relevant sources in the brief introduction in front of the list. And more are available in the parent article, as mentioned there. Thanks for your attention.
Welcome to add more sources to make the article more notable. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no wait, you're right. This is rather embarassing. EDIT: or maybe not, I'm deeply confused. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have no strong opinion on whether this stroke-order information should be on Wiktionary articles like wikt:锗; but it should not be an encyclopedia article. Per nom, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More information for reference: All the 4 articles have just been reviewed on June 15, 2024, by Vanderwaalforces (talk·contribs). (Thanks, Vanderwaalforces) Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review was to take the article off the NPP queue and not to give it an outright approval. This discussion will determine if they’ll stay or be deleted. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a great and useful work but in violation of WP:NOTDICT. The AppendixofWiktionary looks like a potential place for this; I would suggest to transwiki there. (Any Wiktionarians around?) —Kusma (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a good suggestion. Thanks!
I will try it. New to Appendix of Wiktionary, it may take time. Ctxz2323 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These have been transferred as cut-and-paste moves. Is a historymerge needed from WP to Wikt, or alternatively deletion and formal transwiki-ing, or given that all significant edits were made by Ctxz2323, no action needed? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Better to move with history. But there is no such an option on the Move menu of Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a handy way to copy the history to Wiktionary? Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-list 1 used to be the largest in Wikipedia. Ctxz2323 (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 22:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I just don't see what purpose these four lists of brush strokes serve. There is no context given to differentiate one from another and no other information than a unicode number... This seems too specialized for Wikipedia, this would only be useful to a very small subset of linguists or anthropologists and to be honest, I've read the article and still have no ideal what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are four sub-lists of Stroke orders for the 20,992 Unicode CJK character set sorted in YES Order.
It is useful to all Chinese character users.
Please read the parent and grandparent articles for more information. Ctxz2323 (talk) 04:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20,000 Unicode characters don't need a Wikipedia article or series of articles; this seems to be an overly long list, that really doesn't serve the community here. Move to Wiktionary I suppose, not sure how interested they would be there (but they can decide for themselves). Oaktree b (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moving is in progress.
Can anyone help to move the History and other relevant data?
More information is available in the previous discussion. Ctxz2323 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Move to Wiktionary I suppose, ..."
I would appreciate it if you change the vote from DeletetoMove, to better express your more constructive and helpful standing.
The value of the list is confirmed at "Talk:Stroke orders of CJK Unified Ideographs in YES order, part 1 of 4 - Wikipedia", I suppose. Ctxz2323 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc♫talk 15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
There appears to be no WP:SIGCOV. Of the 10 sources:
1 is the original book with the phrase (WP:PRIMARY)
2 link to a non-reliable site designed to promote the phrase
1 just mentions the phrase
the rest are somewhat OK-ish sources that do not actually even mention the phrase (I have simply searched them, so a mention or two could have escaped my attention) Викидим (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge anything reliably sourced that turns up to the main Hunger Games article. While the phrase itself doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG, it's common enough that somebody might search for it here. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hunger Games: I could not find any significant coverage, and none of the material in the article is suitable for merging. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, current sources 6 and 7 probably belong in a cultural impact section. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once we zoom out and look at The Hunger Games, and not just at the phrase, there is indeed a large cultural impact. It is therefore documented in a score of research articles (see doi:10.3138/jrpc.25.3.372 and [3] as very different examples showing the breadth of material available from the researchers), so journalism from daily newspapers is not needed as a source at all. Викидим (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to The Hunger Games. There's not enough here for a spinout article on the phrase itself, at least not yet. Jclemens (talk) 06:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG but a selective merge could preserve what is in reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoThe Hunger Games per others. Notable in that context, but not for a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoThe Hunger Games. I agree with the above discussion that there is not enough coverage to support a separate article, but a selective merge would preserve the coverage that does exist and this is a viable search term so it would be helpful to lead readers somewhere for it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability. I'm just not finding secondary coverage of this. Nor anything primary that's really convincing me of its significance. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this educational conference, only things hitting on Euler's complex numbers. Sourcing used appears primary. Oaktree b (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organization is well known in Esperanto-speaking circles, and I would expect most sources to be in that language. This search found a number of articles in news org sources that discuss the organization: [4] (takes a moment to load the results). I think they're enough to demonstrate notability. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 13:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 21:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding significant coverageinreliable and independent sources. Tagged "This article relies excessively on references to primary sources" since March 2017. -- Otr500 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about the numerous Esperanto-language sources from the search results I linked above? —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 14:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
