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

Linguaschools (language school)

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

I do not see a clear WP:NCORP/WP:GNG pass. The sourcing is mostly official material, accreditation or member listings, directory-style pages, reviews, and routine trade coverage of an acquisition, with little significant independent coverage of Linguaschools itself. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Schools, and Spain. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Singlish vocabulary

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary: WP:NOTDICT. All information here is duplicated from Singlish. The section of vocabulary in Singlish is not enough to warrant its own article. Most words are unsourced and not interesting enough to warrant more than a dictionary definition and hence an inclusion in Wikipedia.

Unlike previous discussions, with the last one in [[1]]:

- The [dictionary] launched in 2024 exists, making this an unnecessary resource.

- All information here can be merged into Singlish as Singlish grammar has been split out. Deletion of this article is the same as merging it in, as I have found reliable sources and expanded it at Singlish to the best I can. If Singlish gets too long, the candidate of splitting is likelier to be History of Singlish; this section is too short.

- "Fascinatingness" of Singlish discussed in threads such as [[2]] are irrelevant to this article; all information about the "fascinatingness" have since been added to Singlish. Hypnoticreflection (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Singapore. Hypnoticreflection (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)reply

Keep - I buy it as valid, though narrowly - seems to narrowly pass gng. Jishara (please ping upon response) (talk) 01:54, 3 August 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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)reply

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

Prodded articles

Redirects for Discussion

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