Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Language. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Language|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Language. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Language

Swedish exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. toweli (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 05:01, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikaans exonyms

AfDs for this article:

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Africa. toweli (talk) 11:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Latvian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, and Europe. toweli (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as none of these (without exception?) have been ruled by Latvia throughout history, there is no natural connection between Latvia and a set group of cities to establish a selection, making it fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's the use of an endless list of examples of the obvious fact that each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography? —Tamfang (talk) 04:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rules lawyer

AfDs for this article:

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

Simple failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY as the article only consists of a definition. A potential WP:ATD is merge to Letter and spirit of the law, but that one is more in a legal context than a gaming one, and not exactly well-sourced or stable in itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. come on, this is the stuff we come to Wikipedia for. Suppose it could be merged somewhere; would support that if appropriate placement is identified. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT. While you may enjoy the article, personal preference doesn't factor into AfDs, only evidence that a full article can be created based on the idea of "rules lawyering". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m satisfied what’s there shows it can. Tell me where you would merge it. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Role-playing game terms seems like a better place to merge it than letter and spirit of the law given its predominant use in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article as it is now, although short, already has some content which would not fit into a dictionary. And a WP:BEFORE search shows that various sources dealing with table-top roleplaying games have more to say: On A Roll p. 45, The Civilized Guide to Tabletop Gaming p. 66 and The Postmodern Joy of Role-Playing Games all have about a page of content, including commentary. And the journal Analog Game Studies Vol. IV has a full essay on the topic. How can 6+ pages contain "only a definition"? So it seems to me the nomination is mostly talking about the current status of the article, which is not decisive when deciding about deletion. All that said, the first and primary paragraph could be merged in to Role-playing game terms, and later be spun out again as soon as someone uses the listed sources further. But aside from that fact that I see no advantage in that, it would already be akward to fit in the other contexts where same term may pop up, but more rarely so if the Google Books search is any indication. Daranios (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analog Game Studies is a good source, the others seem like definitions or brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else. Usually one solid source is still not enough to merit a full page. Therefore I am still not "convinced", though I will admit there is a non zero amount of coverage about the concept of rules lawyering in RPGs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: The first two books (sorry, I had a wrong link there) each have a specific section dedicated to the topic, so brief mentions in the middle of talking about something else is not correct here. The third one does talk about the concept in a larger context, but has significant analysis way beyond a definition (what it means for the game, contrast to other concept,...). So is there material to expand the article beyond the length of a stub? Absolutely! Daranios (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on sources found by Daranios. BOZ (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge that one paragraph into Role-playing game terms. The relevance of the "Related terms" seems very tenuous to me. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with merge, Related terms would appear to be NOTDICTIONARY. IgelRM (talk) 20:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main article content into Role-playing game terms, alongside Rule as Intended and Rule as Written which discuss two sides of the same coin. A list is a better place for this, since a standalone article is borderline WP:NOTDICTIONARY.Jtwhetten (talk) 13:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage is sufficient to meet WP:N and we have more than just a dictionary definition. I could see a broader article on this plus related things such as RAW and RAI (as mentioned above). Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gamesmanship

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with the article besides the pure definition of gamesmanship (which, in itself, is partly WP:OR) being an example farm of different sports. Beyond that, it mostly cites the book written by the person who popularized (and possibly invented) the term, a primary source that doesn't contribute to notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Psychology, and Sports. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:10, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Competition. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is certainly in rough shape, but it already contains secondary sources establishing notability. For instance, The Timelessness of Steven Potter's "Gamesmanship" discusses the concept and its origins and impact ~~at length~~. That essay also contains pointers to additional potential sources such as this apparently-famous book which applies the concept to the behaviour of corporate executives. Similar sources appear to be plentiful on Google Books and Google Scholar. So this looks to me like WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say it discusses the concept at length, but it appears to be about the book itself. Do you have access to the book to pinpoint where exactly it discusses the concept alone and then demonstrate that evidence? Right now we have no way to know whether you have read the book or if it is simply an assumption. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. My comment above was based on a skim of the essay, and looking back now I do think I overstated things. You're right that the essay is primarily a literary discussion of Potter's book. However in its discussion of the book's legacy and impact it does verify that the concept of gamesmanship has had an enduring life of its own. So in combination with the other sources, I'm still satisfied that this counts as WP:SIGCOV. Botterweg14 (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep largely per Botterweg14. This is a reasonably well-sourced article on a notable concept that does not at all read like a dictionary definition. Frank Anchor 12:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek exonyms in Turkey

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

I can see someone has put a lot of work in here but it has been tagged unsourced for a long time, so as someone who cannot speak Greek how would I know if it is true? If this is notable why is there no list on Greek or Turkish Wikipedia? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Greece, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely original research; even if totally accurate, it would require WP:TNT and a rewrite with sourcing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously it's a copy paste from a page like this. There are many such pages of dubious validity circulating on the Greek internet. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, and the article besides its definition is merely an example farm of unrelated examples that are better off examined in articles like cheating or corruption. It is tough to make sense of it, due to how seemingly random and far from each other each example is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, WP:NOTDICTIONARY as nom said. Second, every single source is either unreliable (a PDF of a slide deck, conference proceedings) or a passing example of someone using the phrase in a radically different context. Third, many of the examples are either unsourced or disconnected from each other, WP:SYNTH. And while "gaming the system" might be a specific form of cheating, we just can't have an article without an in-depth source on what makes this form of cheating distinct; a bunch of cherry-picked uses of the term aren't going to cut it. (And I find it hard to believe nobody ever used this term before 1975...a claim sourced to the aforementioned conference proceedings). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. No time to do a WP:BEFORE search myself, but assuming this is not notable as a separate topic WP:Alternatives to deletion should be considered. Aside from the first one, I don't see what's wrong with the secondary sources of the first paragraph. And sentence two to five are not at all what would fit into a dictionary definition but rather historical or analytical commentary. So contrary to the main point of the nomination, this does not fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY. So even if the rest were WP:SYNTH, which I have not time to look into, sentences two to five should be WP:PRESERVEd. Daranios (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. This subject does not meet WP:GNG to be suitable for a standalone article. Jtwhetten (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see what some sock was up to, check the history--it's not worth keeping it here, not even struck through. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the strangest thing I have seen people using socks for. Northern Moonlight 22:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was ironic, given the subject. They were trying to "game the system". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate (or Keep) with a clear link to Letter and spirit of the law and maybe renaming to Gaming the system (law) in case of disambiguation. Article should be clearer if the disambiguation splits the article into several non-overlapping topics. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. That article couldn't exist as standalone because of insufficient reliable sources to back. Ahri Boy (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You missed blocking this sock: Playing the system (talk · contribs). Borgenland (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no doubt this does not meet GNG, but several !votes above suggest merge as an ATD, and ATDs are usually preferred. However, welcome as such suggestions are, I don't see why this subject (which is not so much one subject as any subject where system gaming/rule bending is possible) should be chosen for a redirect. If someone were to search on this term, I think it would be odd to land on a "letter and spirit of the law" page, rather than to be presented by a list of pages where the term may be found. So I don't think the redirect is helpful, and I don't see what content on this page could be safely and beneficially merged there. I think this is a case where straight deletion is preferable to the ATD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Letter and spirit of the law#Gaming the system. AKK700 15:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Abuse#Gaming the system, which appears to be this article's parent? or No Child Left Behind Act#Gaming the system? or Loophole? or Game theory? or Behavioral game theory? or Strategy (game theory)? or Cheating? or Cheating in online games? or Gamification? Why are we settling on this one page for merge when 4150 wikipedia pages discuss gaming the system in hundreds of contexts? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One-upmanship

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

Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY, with its content essentially just being an explanation of its origin that could easily be included in the Wiktionary page. I don't see evidence of the term having standalone notability or passing WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Psychology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking merge to competition. Section on “competitiveness" could use it. Hyperbolick (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How now brown cow

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Fails WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Nardog (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. It's well known, it's discussed in sources, both serious and comedic. Just "Not notable" is a cliche of arguments to avoid in AfDs. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This phrase has SIGCOV in multiple scholarly articles/books for its role in elocution instruction. Passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell us what those are? I'm not seeing significant coverage in the sources currently cited. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything to say about it beyond "It's a phrase sometimes used to teach diphthongs"? If so, what? If not, maybe it should be merged to Elocution or something. Cnilep (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elocution. Looking at the available sources in the current article and the AfD from 15 years ago, the available sources are almost exclusively uses of the phrase in elocution lessons. I don't see how we're going to get around the overreliance on primary sources, and I don't think this meets WP:WORDISSUBJECT. hinnk (talk) 01:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no proof it passes WORDISSUBJECT, as the two "keep" !voters have simply done a WP:SOURCESEXIST. Previous AfDs have not given proof either besides pointing to Google and saying "there must be sources out there!" Hint: there are none. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:18, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete I very recently used this article to assure a colleague I wasn't slurring him. I know that's not Wikipedia's express purpose. But it's not expressly not, either. I'd wager there are other situations where this pagelink might be useful. Plus, it's a "thing people say", so typing it should get them something here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that is in fact expressly not Wikipedia's purpose. If you think there should be something there, demonstrating how it meets the notability guideline or recommending a reasonable alternative to deletion would be more useful than a WP:USEFUL argument. hinnk (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the purpose of assuring colleagues we aren't slurring them. I get how encyclopedias aren't dictionaries. There's not much here, but it's already more than a straight definition. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how the article helps one determine whether it can be a slur (or its pertinence to GNG). Nardog (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you haven't pictured my colleague here as a black guy. And I'm not trying to say it passes GNG. Lots of subjects on this site don't; not as many survive two prior AfDs. Your "not notable" and my "it's useful" are both poor arguments. So we're even. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See here for backstory, now that you're "in on" the (half)joke. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "not notable" I mean I'm unable to find reliable sources demonstrating significant coverage. Nardog (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, trust me. I saw Pierre Viette with his so-called Ethmia pylonotella and Lorymodes australis earlier today, too. Sometimes the Inclusionists just win. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People can also go to a phrasebook to look it up, the question is how an encyclopedia article expands on that. So far, nobody has come up with anything, and the only keep arguments are that the article seems useful and that sufficient amounts of votes will allow the "inclusionists" to win easily. See WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Stuff like Chōjirō, Claude Sionnest and Floating Foundation of Photography stick around despite the guidelines, with far more uncited material and far less attention. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but I did employ it. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I haven't seen any Deletionists ever explain why burning this iffy little obscurity (or any other like it) might help. Help who? Do what? So many questions. I'm willing to change my tune for one good answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If standards are not enforced on Wikipedia by removing failing articles, then it sets a precedent that almost anything is allowed - ultimately dragging down the quality of the encyclopedia. People who regularly create AfDs (I hesitate to say "deletionists", because it implies an urge to delete everything) are often stereotyped as enjoying tearing down other people's work and being OCD about annihilating the encyclopedia. On the contrary, they are attempting to increase the quality of the encyclopedia by helping editors not waste their time on unsalvageable, unhelpful articles, and dedicate it to ones with heavy potential for improvement. Notability failing articles are often rife with original research and inaccuracy due to the inability to find enough sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sold The amount of unsalvageable and unhelpful articles I've Randombuttoned into just since we've met has been pretty tragic, and enough is enough. I'm still glad this potential waste of someone else's time helped me when it did, though. That was then. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is exactly about how that is not an excuse to keep content. Coupled with the false dichotomy between GNG and WP:USEFUL, you seem to have a penchant for arguing against your own stated position.

I'm as much an inclusionist as the next person as long as I see more than passing coverage in reliable sources. In fact I nominated it precisely because I had questions about the phrase and I couldn't find answers in our article or reliable sources. We owe it to ourselves to keep out of the encyclopedia topics we have nothing to write about. I'll happily switch sides as soon as you show us reliable sources that don't just use, but discuss, the phrase to any meaningful extent. Nardog (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep, but rewrite~~ Delete "How now brown cow" is adequately covered in enough sources to meet WP:SIGCOV, if only barely. It is discussed [1] here on JSTOR (albeit indirectly) and [2] here on Sage. The article as it is is very short and minimally sourced, and lacks sources that establish SIGCOV: one of the three is WP:USERG. Given the consensus with Irregardless, which I nominated for deletion, the coverage this has as a linguistic subject seems sufficient for an article. Like Irregardless, the article should be expanded to use the phrase as a case study for elocution, like how Irregardless is used as a case study for prescriptivist and descriptivist linguistics. Needs a complete rewrite, but seems to fulfil WP:SIGCOV and WP:WORDISSUBJECT - again, if only just. Reconsidering these sources and comments below, the coverage here is so meagre I don't think it passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT anymore. The sources for Irregardless at least directly mentioned the word, but these don't. I think it would still maybe be possible to similarly use "how now brown cow" to discuss the teaching of diphthongs, but its coverage in reliable secondary sources is probably not sufficient. The article is also so short there would be no point in merging to Elocution. Masskito (talk) —��Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "discussed"? The phrase is nowhere to be found aside from the title in either of those sources. There's not even a mention, let alone discussion. How do you suggest the article be rewritten when those are the best sources you can find? Nardog (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1: These pieces use the phrase in their titles, but they don't discuss it. They discuss phonemic awareness, not this phrase as such. Cnilep (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here yet. But this AFD can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Critical discussion of the phrase here [3], example of usage here [4]. [5], usage of the phrase in genetics cases [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Used here in language analysis [7] and the phrase being used to train multilingual chatbots [8]. Origins of the phrase here from Scotland [9] with footnotes for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Link [3] from Oaktree is the same article as link [2] ("How Now Brown Cow: Phoneme Awareness..." at sagepub.com) from Masskito discussed above. Cnilep (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: Can you quote some of that "critical discussion of the phrase"? Nardog (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okjeo language

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

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic discord

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

Hi, I'm proposing the article Semantic discord for deletion. The existing have serious problems and I have not been able to find significant sources that are specifically about "semantic discord" (or "semantic dispute"). The article is very old (2004) and have not had many serious expansions since. Various examples have been added and later removed because they were unfortunate examples. In 2021, it was merged with Semantic dispute (which has the same issues).

Comments on the current sources:

The article in "The Horizon" may have it as its specific topic but I cannot access it (but it seems to be a student publication, which is maybe not ideal as the only serious source).
The Devitt article is about methods in (philosophical?) semantics and covers something relevant about the topic. He uses the term "semantic" disputes a few times, but sometimes it seems to be more in the sense of 'dispute within the field of semantics'. (I have not read it in its entirety, but the word 'discord' does not occur there).
The source "Encyclopedia of GIS" is about naming conventions of geographic data (about 'semantic uncertainty', with a section of two paragraphs called "Discord"), which is not really the topic of the article.
The fourth source may be spam, but used to link to some course notes that are about the term 'semantically loaded' (related, but something different).

The term "semantic discord" can be easily be found in use through searching (when searching, I spent extra time looking at Google Scholar), but it does not seem to be something specific that is studied or described in detail in an encyclopedic (or encyclopedically useful) way. It seems to be used to refer to any kind of discord (in the normal sense of the word, i.e. disagreement or tension) that may be connected to "semantics" in a very broad sense. Sometimes it's the lack of linguistic agreement, sometimes it's differing meaning in different languges, sometimes it's differences in the interpretation of law, sometimes it's differing in the core of various ism's, and some people seem to introduce it as a term for their statistical solution to some problem. But I got the feeling that the term is very often a loaded term itself, often used to describe some arguing as a rooted in questions of definition (especially the case with 'semantic dispute'). Over the history of this article and "semantic dispute", various examples have been added and removed as not being good or being opinionated.

I have difficulty seeing how it would be possible to write about it without some variety of original research (or synthesis) or without controversial examples/POV problems.

Potentially, something about the term could in principle fit into a broad-concept article on "Discord", which it seems difficult to disentangle from (but note that an earlier article on "Disagrement" was deleted), but it could be a redirect target nonetheless. Or it could redirect to Semantic argument, which seems related, or one of the things under "see also" (e.g. to loaded language).

There are no links from article namespace except the disambiguation page Discord (disambiguation) (I removed an irrelevant link from Ladda Land recently), but there are links from various discussions. Note that Semantic dispute and Semantically loaded redirects to it. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philosophy. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 23:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is not in good shape, and it isn't clear if there are editors interested in the topic, but there are many scholarly articles that use the term. Without doing deep research (i.e. no, I'm not going to read 10-20 articles on G-Scholar), I am going to assume that the use of the term in those sources is significant. Lamona (talk) 03:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have the impression there was any significant coverage of the term? I went through several pages on Google Scholar and everything looked like passing mention (or just regular use) of the two words. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 10:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What they show is that "semantic discord" is a "thing" - it is a known concept that is used frequently to describe something. Most of them don't define it, which tells me that they expect readers to already understand the concept. That tells me is that it is a common concept in some disciplines. I did find one article discussing it as a concept rather than using it to describe social actions - here. A search in Google Books brings up a number of books in the area of linguistics. I don't know if this is just some post-modern gobbly-gook or if it is a serious area of study - I have yet to find the origin of the term, which presumably would define it. But there is a lot of evidence of its use. Lamona (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we're interpreting the evidence in opposite ways :) But what I fear is that having a Wikipedia article makes it sound more like a "thing" than it is. The 2020 paper you mention seems a lot like a close paraphrase of Wikipedia, and it doesn't provide any sources in the relevant section. Some of the linguistic books are probably going to be about lack of linguistic agreement of semantic features, which is something else than what the article is currently about. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 15:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much share your concern that the Wikipedia article is creating something out of nothing with this term (as I discuss below). I found that same 2020 computer science paper in my own search and it's really the closest I could find to useful coverage at all-- and it's a totally sourceless claim about an unrelated discipline, exactly the sort of thing someone would pull from Wikipedia. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure of what to do here. There’re some possibilities of expansion and examples, such as the use of “rigor” in education, but I don’t see any secondary sources. Is this too soon? Bearian (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too soon, yes, with the footnote that it's among the first 1000 pages on Wikipedia (as Semantic dispute) and has not developed well in the time since then. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 10:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the sort of phrase where I do think it's necessary to actually examine the sourcing to see if people are discussing a well-defined concept or if they're just naturally pairing together the words "semantic" and "discord"/"dispute". (i.e., the difference between apple pie-- a Thing-- and yummy pie-- a common linguistic construction.) I can't find any evidence that this is a Thing. Below is my assessment of some sources, starting with the ones cited in the article.

meh: "Semantic discord is rooted in confusing labels and titles" (unpaywalled wayback link) This is a student editorial about the political terms "pro-life" and "Defund the Police," which argues that both terms are ineffective because they cause semantic discord. Its only discussion of semantic discord is in the introductory paragraph: ...semantic discord, which is when two parties disagree on the meaning of a word or several words that are crucial to furthering discussion of the issue at hand. Oftentimes, semantic discord arises not out of genuine misunderstanding, but as an opportunity for petty jabs at an opponent... -- this implies that semantic discord is A Thing but I wouldn't consider it sigcov in itself.
nope: "Uncertainty, Semantic." In Encyclopedia of GIS -- This encyclopedia redirects "semantic discord" as a synonym for semantic uncertainty, as defined in the discipline of geographic data analysis, which is entirely different from what our article discusses. (It is really just the idea that Birmingham is ambiguous.)
nope: The Methodology of Naturalistic Semantics -- This is an article about semantics that never uses the words "semantic discord". It does pose as its key question How should we go about settling semantic disputes? (p 545) Having desperately worked to understand this paper, however, I conclude that it actually about the concept of intuition in philosophy, and is useless for writing an article called "semantic discord"; moreover, it does not remotely verify the information it is cited for.
big nope: The fourth cited source, currently listed as "SO3", used to point to a PDF, visible in this prior version of the page. The PDF is a professor's class notes for their students, including a vocabulary list, including the vocabulary word "semantically loaded." This is not useful coverage of the concept "semantic discord."
nope: Semantical Discordances of Comparison in Law Negatively Defined -- this is a paper on an entirely unrelated topic (comparative law) which just happens to use the phrase semantic discord.
nope: Semantic Discord: Finding Unusual Local Patterns for Time Series -- this paper is coining the term "semantic discord" but it's a completely different thing; their baseline definition of "discord" has to do with anomalies in time-series data, and a "semantic discord" is a time-series data anomaly which has been located by evaluating local context instead of just the overall series. (They appear to name it 'semantic' because of the idea that semantics are related to context.)
meh: Linguistics meets economics: Dealing with semantic variation This is the most promising, but still insufficient. It uses the word discord only once: As a leading illustrative example, we consider semantic discord in the entrepreneurial finance world. The associated frictions have real and non-negligible costs. This bolsters our notion that we have identified a relevant and applicable constraining force on semantic change (68). The overall focus of the paper is on semantic change. Along the way there is substantial discussion of what they term "semantic variation", i.e., instances where people understand the same word differently. The situations that relate to our semantic discord article are consistently referred to as "miscommunications". As a linguistics paper it has many opportunities to define and discuss the concept of "semantic discord" and does not do so.

I did some additional searching and I think "semantic variation" is a Thing in linguistics, but it's not semantic discord.

hmm...yikes!! Theory versus practice in annealing-based quantum computing I got very excited by this: A technical term that has multiple meanings is semantically loaded. Philosophers use the term semantic discord to refer to a situation where a dispute about some concept arises not from disagreement about the concept, but from disagreement about the meanings of the words used to describe the concept: that is, semantically loaded language leads to semantic discord. That sounds tasty. However, I think they actually got this idea from our Wikipedia article. These computer scientists cite no sources for this claim, and searching "semantic discord" + "philosophy" just brings up a bunch of people talking about the Wikipedia article. (This asklinguistics reddit thread seems particularly damning. (They find the term "semantic dissonance" but that is the same concept as the "semantic uncertainty" from the GIS textbook, it's not at all this article's concept.))

Having looked at all the above sources and many others which didn't warrant more than a skim, I can find no grounds to have an article on "semantic discord," and no appropriate options for renaming. I think deletion is called for. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (I'm the nominator), but I think it would best be done as a redirect to Discord (disambiguation) or Dispute (or alternatively Semantic argument). --//Replayful (talk | contribs) 09:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC) (I'm striking this duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
- FYI Nominators don't get an additional boldtext delete !vote (it's implied in the nomination). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 10:41, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for the clarification. I guess I was just blindly following dawiki practices or mixing it up with other discussions. I hope I haven't messed up anything now. But a little weird if the "participants" count at e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics/Article alerts is not supposed to include the nominator as a participant. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 11:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What the article alerts bot decides is important for the sake of recruiting more editors isn't considered when a discussion is closed by an admin. At that stage, the nomination statement is understood to be a delete vote (or !vote) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Keep, Delete and now Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded articles