Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion and merging 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

Luwian Studies

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

Fails WP:NORG. No significant independent secondary coverage. Taking this revision as a starting point for review: excluding citations to the organizations own website, publications by the organization's president, publications that are identified in the text as being financially supported by the organization, and publications that predate the establishment of the organization:

Refs 3, 4, 11, 14, 26 all either don't mention the organization at all or only trivially mention its existence
Refs 20, 22, and 35 all either don't mention the organization or only mention it in attributing quotes.
Ref 21 additionally only cites a press release from the organization
Ref 2 cites a primary source in a commercial register
The only remotely relevant coverage is the Der Spiegel article, and of the single mention of the organization that isn't quote attribution in there, it is about someone joining the board.

I've looked around the web, and it does not seem like notability can be established. I'll also note that much of the contents of the article are written by a WP:SPA, who has only contributed to pages relating to this organization. Kisseran (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Archaeology. Kisseran (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related AfD discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Seems like a potentially notable group—perhaps it could be treated like a publisher—which requires more sources to establish notability. Currently most of the sources go toward establishing why the field of studies is notable, or what the subjects of individual publications are, both of which could go in an article of this type, although they do not speak about the organization itself. Its mission statement and similar information can be taken from its own media, but do not establish notability. I'm less concerned with whether a single-purpose account contributed most of the material than whether notability can be established by independent sources. Perhaps other editors will have more luck locating discussions of this group in news or academic sources; it's not an area I have enough familiarity with (academic journals, German-language news sources) to feel competent assessing. If notability can't be established, some of this could still be merged into the broader topics of the Luwian Language or people. P Aculeius (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

After opening the AFD, I also noticed strong public evidence to suspect that the single-purpose account was also engaging in undisclosed paid editing based on contacts listed from recent press releases like this one, although if this AfD succeeds then I think posting on the COI noticeboard is probably unnecessary. I won't touch on whether the views of the organization are fringe, but any utility of the current article's contents in broader articles would be counteracted by the issues in NPOV and DUE. I acknowledge that neither of these should in principle factor into notability, but one thing that is useful to determining notability is the organization's own extensive catalog of media reports, which I looked through, and none of the coverage seems to contribute notability from a combination of being from generally unreliable sources, being press releases, and all in all being trivial coverage on the organization itself. It's helpful to compare the press coverage with their own archive of press releases (and older ones on the wayback machine that didn't seem to survive a website overhaul). Given the organization's evident interest in publicity (which incidentally seems to extend into Wikipedia), I think it's safe to assume that if notability-conferring coverage isn't found there, then it doesn't exist anywhere. Kisseran (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Bomboclat

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

I can't see how this specific slang term is notable. All, excluding the Know Your Meme entry, are dictionary entries. I couldn't find anything every remotely reliable on the term except a few minor mentions. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Popular culture, Internet, and Jamaica. Nighfidelity (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep. I have found at least one source which mentions this word in more than a trivial mention: https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781501511202-007/html There might be more I haven't found yet. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Hypotaxis

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

I, as a major editor of the hypotaxis article, propose merging to Parataxis argue for the following reasons: (1) both are similar rhetoric devices that are (in English, at least) exclusive— as in every non-paratactical sentence is hypotactical, so there is no weird overlap; (2) both pages contain many of the same headers— history, use, examples (and etymology could be added with hypotaxis)— so the structure would work pleasantly; (3) both articles, especially hypotaxis, often compares parataxis in its explanations, so it would be easier to do that contrasting and explanation in one location; (4) not many articles (currently about 20) link to hypotaxis, giving it less relevancy and more incentive to merge.

For basis, the rhetoric book The Elements of Eloquence combined hypotaxis and parataxis in one chapter, where usually chapters are reserved for only one device; there are rhetorical articles that merge similarly (take Zeugma and syllepsis); and WP:OVERLAP provides a valid basis for a merging (take the example flammable and non-flammable becoming flammability).

I would be willing to do much of the work involving the merging process.

TLDR: I propose merging to Parataxis because of the articles' (1) similar topics, (2) similar headers and content, (3) existing comparisons in both articles, (4) hypotaxis' lack of prominence, (5) pre-existing basis for merging

SavageSquad67 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Language-related AfD discussions. SavageSquad67 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. None of WP:MERGEREASON applies. The closest is "4. Context" ("in order to better serve reader understanding.") But the articles are perfectly understandable independently. --Altenmann >talk 14:51, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Skuf

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

I propose redirecting to a List of 2020 Slang Words because of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NSUSTAINED Ashie6213 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: there doesn't appear to be a target with (or near) the title the nominator suggests. The closest I could find at a quick glance was Glossary of 2020s slang; this is not listed there. (No opinion on the article itself or whether it should remain in any form.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply
If the article 'Dad bod' exists, then 'Skuf' should exist as well. However, I completely understand if these and similar articles end up being merged into a broader article. Er nesto (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

After research I have decided to withdraw my AFD proposal Ashie6213 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I think the AFD should remain open, it's worth a discussion. Is this encyclopedic? Are the sources reliable? Geschichte (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Asyndeton

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

I propose merging to Polysyndeton because expanding this article (i.e. adding rhetorical use and effect) would lead to overlap; additionally, much of the articles are composed of examples which could be combined (and split by headers)— if merged, I am willing to compile the information together. See here for example of a merged rhetorical device page SavageSquad67 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

The following article could be nominated as well

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Language-related AfD discussions. SavageSquad67 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: There is also Syndeton, which I gather might be subject to the same rationale. @SavageSquad67: Would you like to see all three articles merged, or is there a reason to keep the unmarked version separate? Cnilep (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply
ResponseThat is a great point, @Cnilep:: previously, I had commented that syndeton would be included in the merger, and I now would like to retract that statement. While polysyndeton and asyndeton both refer to rhetorical devices, syndeton is a grammatical concept which would be weird discussing side-by-side with rhetorical devices (especially regarding listing examples and rhetorical use). Instead, syndeton should, in my opinon, be kept seperate (though the page may have some minor discussion of the syndeton).
I would argue anyone who was looking for an article about how the syndeton works would find learning about rhetorical devices unhelpful and vice versa (P.S.: I don't know what I'm talking about, please correct me if I'm wrong).
TLDR : Rhetorical and grammatical concepts should be kept seperate

SavageSquad67 (talk) 7:31, 23 July 2026 (UTC)
SavageSquad67 FYI the AfD tag is still on the article. FaviFake (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
FaviFakeI tried to remove it and Wikipedia would not let me. If someone has the ability to remove it they may, but for now I believe it is fine in case it is decided syndeton should actually be merged. SavageSquad67 (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose. None of WP:MERGEREASON applies. The closest is "4. Context" ("in order to better serve reader understanding.") But the articles are perfectly understandable independently. --Altenmann >talk 14:50, 27 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Tirukkural translations into Swedish

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

Merge to Tirukkural translations per WP:SHORTTEXT and WP:NOPAGE. Found on random articles patrol. I don't see a single translation as a viable standalone article when we have an article about the body of translations. Note that there are other, similar stubs, but I prefer to focus on this one for the time being. Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Language-related AfD discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Support – Can slot nicely into the existing table's Notes field in Tirukkural translations. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2026 (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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Crime Subaru

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

I propose redirecting to Subaru Leone because the sourcing provided does not indicate the subject is sufficiently notable for wikipedia.

The sources so far are a song which is WP:PRIMARY, a forum thread and facebook post which are WP:USERGENERATED. The two remaining sources seem reasonable but only contain a passing mention of the subject which is not enough to determine notability.

I have not been able to turn up additional sources during WP:BEFORE (though I am unable to look for Hebrew sources).

I think at best there could be enough here for a brief mention in the page for Subaru Leone and possibly other relevant models. Giulio 21:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Crime, Transportation, and Israel. Giulio 21:50, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I get that some might want to mix Crime-Subaru to the Subaru-Leone page, but it was a somewhat popular page on its own on the Hebrew Wikipedia.

moreover, it is a moderately popular slang, which deserves its own page for explaining it fully. I am aware that 5 sources for a short page are maybe too little: and 2 of them being from an internet forums is laughable, but this is what a slang is, it grows from these niche forums on the internet; so expecting a more formal sources for a page about a slang is also absurd.

So I think that Crime-Subaru shall be left alone as its own page, while Subaru-Leone shall stay a separate page, or maybe just able to direct to the Crime-Subaru page.

(please note that English is not my mothertongue, so it's perhaps less accurate) יהונתן אלפרון (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Subaru's massive popularity in Israel during the 1970s and 1980s was an internationally almost unique phenomenon, ending when the major Japanese brands were also imported to the country. (Unique but for Chile, where this popularity lasts.) While this historical context absolutely deserves to be mentioned on the main Subaru page, it is currently not mentioned there. The indirect cultural references to the Subaru Leone found in the nominated article are not descriptive enough of this model to warrant a merge (also since the generic name of Subaru was used for the Leone model), and a straight redirect is not a viable option since the target page completely lacks this context. gidonb (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Delete. The sources don't establish that this is notable enough to include even as a mention in the Subaru Leone article, so this title should not exist as a redirect there. --Sable232 (talk) 03:06, 20 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:09, 23 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete as per gidonb and Sable232. Mr.choppers | ✎ 04:32, 25 July 2026 (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.

Melee

AfDs for this article:

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

The article states that a melee is "hand-to-hand fighting among several people". There is an extremely heavy WP:OVERLAP between this article and hand-to-hand combat, and it should be merged there per that and WP:MERGESHORT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:23, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per WP:SHORTTEXT and per WP:OVERLAP. Why didn't you boldly perform the merge yourself?? FaviFake (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
I was the one who nominated it for deletion last time, so it would have been too controversial to boldly merge. This is an WP:ATD I think would be better received than outright removal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply
That was the right call, Zxcvbnm. Geschichte (talk) 03:55, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. HundredVisionsAndRevisions (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Merge per WP:OVERLAP. MissBVCC (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply

This article has fluctuated wildly over its history. It is currently a hollowed out husk. But the term is not synonymous with hand-to-hand combat. I would rather redirect to tournament (medieval). Srnec (talk) 20:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Oppose merge - I don't believe the term is synonymous with hand-to-hand combat by any means and therefore I don't find it close enough to fit OVERLAP. I'd be open to hearing alternate suggestions for articles to merge to, tho. Jishara (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep per Jishara. A stub is perfectly acceptable, but if you can identify a better target, ping me. Bearian (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Tournament_(medieval)#Melee. Oppose merge to hand-to-hand combat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that terms don't have to be synonymous to justify merging, per WP:MERGEREASON. The only question before us is where readers would benefit most from seeing this content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:44, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply

MErge to Tournament_(medieval)#Melee as WP:DICDEF. The outcome defends on which target we merge this term to. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 16:26, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Note @AirshipJungleman29: @LaundryPizza03: The historical and current scope of the article is clearly NOT about the medieval melee tournament, but about a hand-to-hand fight. Thus, I believe the tournament would not be an appropriate target, and the disagreement threatens to derail what should otherwise be agreement that this should be merged somewhere. If people believe that the medieval tournament is the primary topic, you can feel free to nominate the redirect for RfD afterwards, which could result in the redirect being moved to Melee (hand-to-hand combat) or the like. However, I urge you to support the currently proposed merge instead and raise the concerns about the proper primary topic in RfD rather than here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:07, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
WP:NOTBURO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
NOTBURO does not mean that all elements of rules should be jettisoned completely because rules are bad. It specifically refers to policies and guidelines being misused, and I do not believe my suggestion to decide what is primary topic later is misusing them. It's clearly a more contentious debate than the idea that this page should be merged at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)reply
Keep Melee is the activity, hand to hand combat is somewhat different and a more academic thing. Hand to hand combat occurs in a melee. Looking on scholar, there are uses of it. And Wiktionary itself has seven definitions. Merge is definitely out, but I could see dabifying it, however I suspect there may be enough sourcing for this even if it not currently presented. ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply
See WP:SOURCESEXIST, you would need to present sufficient sourcing to prove an expansion into a lengthy standalone article that does not overlap with hand-to-hand combat is possible. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Redirect somewhere. First choice, albeit somewhat tentatively: Tournament (medieval) or Tournament (medieval)#Melee. The text of that article contains about 20 instances of the word, including as a subsection heading. That suggests to me that readers may often be looking for that topic (though I may be wrong about that). Second choice: redirect to Hand-to-hand combat. This is not my first choice for two reasons. The word is mentioned only once in the text, and that is just as a modifier in "melee weapons", a use that could even be removed. Secondly, hand-to-hand combat is only a melee when there are several (or more) combatants; hand-to-hand combat between two individuals is not a melee. All that said, if I could be convinced that the majority of users following existing incoming links to Melee would be looking more for hand-to-hand combat than the medieval tournament, I might flip my first choice to that. (I am not taking the time to analyse all the incoming links, sorry.) Nurg (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Goulsse alphabet

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

Goulsse is a constructed script created in 2022 which does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and is specifically a violation of WP:SPIP. While there are four citations which refer to Goulsse, two of them were written by the same person, Tim Brookes, another is a Unicode update which was also partially written by Tim Brookes, while one is a glancing mention which itself links to its Omniglot.com page. If we look at Mr. Brookes' two articles, we can see that the article from multilingual.com (link) copies so much of its pertinent content from endangeredalphabets.com (link) that they should be considered a single source from sites which may not meet standards for notability.

The Unicode citation (pdf link) mentions support from the "Kassena Language Council", but I can't find any information that such a body exists as all references to it online are from the two aforementioned sites or sites which are managed by the creators of Goulsse themselves. The document also claims that "[i]t is also in the process of being considered a “discovery” by the Ministry of Education of Burkina Faso" and that thousands of students are learning it. I cannot find any evidence for these claims, either, and I also note that Burkina Faso's ministry in charge of Education is actually named the Ministry of National Education, Literacy and Promotion of National Languages. This document also contains quotes from the creators of Goulsse.

The citation from the UK government's Permanent Committee on Geographical Names (pdf link) merely notes the existence of Goulsse and directly cites Omniglot.com, a site which allows user submissions with the comment, "If your script looks good and really appeals to me, I may add it to Omniglot." (link). The document also notes that one is unlikely to encounter Goulsse on "geospatial products or sources", meaning signage or printed maps.

There are no other sources which mention Goulsse except for sites and documents which have been made by the script's creators.

Additionally, the edit history for the page shows years of efforts by IP editors to insert non-notable material and references into the article which are subsequently rolled back. There was a substantial contribution from User:Transhumanistnerd0, a sockpuppet of User:65sugg, and these accounts were used to upload all of the images related to Goulsse to Wikipedia. Those accounts attempted to create a page for Wenitte Apiou, one of Goulsse's creators, four times between 2023 and 2025. Eladynnus (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Language-related AfD discussions. Eladynnus (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Retain: There are many "constructed scripts" that have been described and documented.^[1] Many of these have Wikipedia articles. That is an objection with very little weight. Wikipedia should contain articles where the curious can find information. If an Oxford dissertation refers to it and the local desire to create curriculum, I think Wikipedia should consider it notable. Pete unseth (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)reply

I do not deny that there are constructed scripts which merit inclusion on Wikipedia. However, your article was published prior to the creation of Goulsse and does not have any bearing on whether or not this particular script meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Your other arguments are also covered by WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL, which both state that an article's notability should be the main criterion for inclusion. WP:EXIST, while not policy, has some bearing on this matter. The notability of other constructed scripts, such as N'ko, does not enhance that of Goulsse.

I also looked into Nowakowski's thesis (link) which you added, and Goulsse is only mentioned in passing in an interview with a young speaker of the Kassem language. There is nothing said about it other than that it exists. The paper is quoted in a way that suggests that there is a programme to teach Goulsse to Kassem speakers, when the interviewee is expressing incredulity that a modern educational curriculum can be prepared for Kassem at the present time for reasons unrelated to its writing system. I do find it interesting that he says there is no Kassem-language curriculum at present while another citation claimed that Goulsse alone had been taught to thousands of people only a year after its creation. Eladynnus (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Actually the interviewee is using the fact that Kassem only just got its own alphabet to argue that the language isn't developed enough to prepare a curriculum in it.--Srleffler (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Delete. Also relevant is this RFC, which hasn't been closed but is quite clear on Omniglot being unreliable. Not strictly relevant to notability, but this seems like the kind of article that would be very prone to citogenesis if left up. Kisseran (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Comment: I am undecided about whether the ~~language~~ writing system is notable, but the persistent attempts by sockpuppet accounts to promote Goulsse and to make an article about its creator make me much less comfortable with this article than I would otherwise be. In particular, the sockpuppet used various means to try to bypass or work around Wikipedia's policies and procedures. The willful evasion involved leads me to think we should be stricter about requiring reliable sources. It may also just be too soon to evaluate this topic. --Srleffler (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Goulasse is only the writing system. The languages it was created for are inherently notable, but otherwise I agree.Eladynnus (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Whether sockpuppets have contributed to this article in the past is not relevant as to whether it should be retained. I am disappointed how few voices it takes to delete an article. I have expressed my opinion to Retain the article. I will not start an edit war. I will withdraw. Pete unseth (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2026 (UTC)reply

It's not deleted yet, and so far the voices in favor of deletion are too few. I do not see a clear consensus for deletion here.--Srleffler (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2026 (UTC)reply

It may be necessary to relist the discussion. Eladynnus (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply

References

^ Unseth, Peter (2011). "Invention of Scripts in West Africa for Ethnic Revitalization". In Fishman, Joshua A.; García, Ofelia (eds.). Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: The Success-Failure Continuum in Language and Ethnic Identity Efforts. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 23–32. ISBN 978-0-19-983799-1.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:47, 16 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - it's definitely a very, very tight case, but its inclusion in the dissertation, in particular, is enough for it to squeak through. Jishara (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)reply

How so? The dissertation was for a master's degree and per WP:THESIS is only reliable if is shown to have had a "significant scholarly influence", which I do not believe is the case here. Even if it were a reliable source, there still absolutely isn't any nontrivial coverage of the alphabet within it. Kisseran (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Agreed, the mention is so incidental that we can't even say for certain that the alphabet which the interviewee mentions is the same as the one in this article. Eladynnus (talk) 11:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)reply

Prodded articles

Redirects for Discussion

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 7#redirects from ISO 639 codes 'os' and 'oss'

[1] Unseth, Peter (2011). "Invention of Scripts in West Africa for Ethnic Revitalization". In Fishman, Joshua A.; García, Ofelia (eds.). Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity: The Success-Failure Continuum in Language and Ethnic Identity Efforts. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 23–32. ISBN 978-0-19-983799-1.

[1]

A page that knows where it met you.

Language

Prodded articles

Redirects for Discussion