Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

1. 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.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Language|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

Clue (information) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The page doesn't cover anything that isn't already under evidence. All the page does is go over different ways a clue can be used. Pretty redundant if you ask me. GilaMonster536 (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was a weak keep in the last AfD in 2024. I have no idea what I was thinking, but I was extremely stressed IRL. I'm still stressed but also blessed (insert joke emoji here). Seriously folks, this is what most laypersons and high school students think of as evidence or proof, or as hinting towards a solution, as opposed to the legal concept that "something that tends to prove a cause of action or criminal case." Both of these articles can exist in uneasy compromise. Bearian (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Games, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to evidence per WP:OVERLAP. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singdarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I've lived in Singapore for more than ten years. "Singdarin" is not a thing. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick google scholar search for "Singdarin" comes up with 17 results, and a google search finds only 124 results (with similar results ommited). If Singdarin is a thing, it is safe to assume that the good sources are not in English. Machine translation is pretty useless with this word. Anyone who knows Mandarin, Malay or Tamil might be able to find some better sources.

The sources on this article are also really bad. The word Singdarin is mentioned in almost none of the sources, and when it is, it is used as shorthand for Singaporean Mandarin. Clubspike2 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Denying the existence of Singdarin is no different to denying that Singlish exists. An overwhelming number of Mandarin-speaking Singaporeans use Singdarin in colloquial speech and I find it peculiar that you have not noticed this despite claiming to have lived in Singapore for a decade—which I suppose its possible, if you had mostly just lived among other expats/immigrants and not interacted much with the locals. Many ethnic Chinese Singaporeans are not known to be particularly fluent in Mandarin as compared to their Chinese/Taiwanese counterparts due to their country's multicultural background as well as their huge immersion in English being their main language, which led to the rise of Singdarin. 175.197.10.59 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret that Singaporeans mix Mandarin and English, but unlike Singlish, I have never ever heard the term "Singdarin". Clubette (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning towards this definitely exists, but a few more academic sources would serve this article better. JungleEntity (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comprised of (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Violates WP:NOT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ill-formed AfD, but allow me: This article is a WP:DICTDEF padded out with examples and long digressions about what style guides have to say about this phrase. The only significant, secondary coverage in the sources are a few articles about one WP user's crusade against the phrase, and those articles aren't really about the phrase at all (and are fluffy slow-news-day pap IMO). If we really want, we can have an article about that little tiff, but the phrase is as non-notable as it gets. All kinds of word pairings are inappropriate or sound awkward in certain situations; to give them articles violates WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Giraffedata: I like giraffes. Polygnotus (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it's appropriately sourced. They aren't passing references and not fluff pieces. If you have any issue about the sources, those should be tagged first or a discussion on the talk page. Also note that User:Giraffedata/comprised of exists for any alternatives to deletion. – The Grid (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You apparently haven't read the talk page, where the discussion was already started last year, and this is its outcome. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Where comprised of was more formal (an article version) of User:Giraffedata/comprised of? – The Grid (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Literature. – The Grid (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with @WeirdNAnnoyed:. There could maybe a case to be made that User:Giraffedata is notable but I really don't agree with the idea that something which a) an editor obsesses about on en.wiki which is b) then covered in the media c) makes the thing notable on en.wiki. That seems perverse. JMWt (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically, the solution to that is to take all of the navel-gazing stuff about Wikipedia out, and leave the linguistics. The article was started in 2015 and clearly originated because of that editor. But all of that obscures the reality that there is a linguistic discussion to be had, which many books on English language usage have had going back to at least the 1940s, about the usage of "comprise" and "compose". In retrospect, titling this (say) comprise and compose from the start would have made it less skewed, because the overall linguistic discussion is about a more general confusion, and shift in usage. A yet more general subject is hinted at by the 1906 The King's English where the Fowlers listed this in their section on the "give and take forms" subset of malapropisms; although I am not aware that many people ran with that typology. Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is about the perennial usage controversy, so it isn't a dictionary entry in violation of WP:DICTDEF or a usage guide in violation of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Although the topic received a flurry of news coverage as a result of Giraffedata's Wikipedia edits, much of that coverage was really about the linguistic issue rather than Giraffedata himself (e.g. this) and there are plenty of other sources that are unrelated to the Wikipedia side of the controversy (e.g. this and this). Botterweg (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is at heart an encyclopedia article about a usage controversy, not a dictionary definition of the verb to comprise. It reads somewhat polemical at points, but deletion isn't the solution to that. Writing on Wikipedia about developments at Wikipedia is acceptable, provided that we have sources from outside that we can rely upon, which we do here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regardless of whether coverage on Giraffedata's editing makes this phrase notable, this article already justifies its existence by also including whether "comprised of" should be removed in legal texts by citing well-known lexicographer Bryan A. Garner. As Botterweg notes, much of the press coverage on Giraffedata actually delved into the broader descriptive vs prescriptive grammar debate, providing this article with a thoroughly sourced set of views on this case study ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 22:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — (weak to moderate) - This is clear NOTDICT territory, fluffed-up with original research and SYNTH (or at least skirting the line of both). We’re also touching on a bit of Woozle/CIRCULAR and puffery territory, though I will admit that is a simple fix. That said, I’m not going to comment on Wikipedians attempting to police the natural development of English. This article, by definition, is NOTDICT territory. At the very least we need to see a re-name to "Use of comprised of" (or similar) or simply a merger with English usage controversies (or similar). I would change to a "keep" vote if we could agree on a name change. This article is about the controversy surrounding the use of the phrase, not the phrase itself. The phrase itself simply… is. MWFwiki (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As Nardog alludes to, WP:WORDISSUBJECT highlights some cases where coverage on particular words/phrases provides notability. For articles like thou and no worries, we did not write the titles as "Use of ..." because words/phrases inherently must be used. In other words, we can have articles like "use of nigger in the arts", but "use of comprised of" without a specific area makes the article title unnecessarily longer. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 18:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But , again, that isn’t what this article is about. It’s not about the word or the phrase. It’s about the controversy of it. I won’t die on a hill regarding the article’s title but it is incorrect in its current form. It is necessary to make it longer since it’s not simply about the phrase.

  “Thou” and “no worries” appear to be — primarily — about the use of the word/phrase proper. MWFwiki (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Like it or not, (the coverage on) Giraffedata has made this a clear WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Nardog (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A single editor’s obsession — which is not supported by various dictionaries (and a Guardian OPED) — does not confer notability. A single article almost a decade ago does not constitute SIGCOV. I think there is probably enough to establish notability (at least for the controversy surrounding the phrase), here, but otherwise it is not justified by an essay. MWFwiki (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, I completely agree with you that Giraffedata's arguments against "comprised of" are all refuted by that Guardian op-ed cited in this article. However, lexicographer Bryan A. Garner's cautioning against "comprised of" in legal texts precedes the creation of Giraffedata's account, clearly making this article about a broader debate on the phrase. Yes, most of this article's sources are from a burst of coverage in 2015, but rather than theorizing on the WP:10YEARTEST, we can see here in 2025 that the article is just as understandable and relevant as when it was written. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 15:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I agree with this. I don't know why we're arguing on WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Notability is not a temporary measure. The opeds can be considered primary sources with the key note they also may not be considered as independent sources. The arguments from MWFwiki are bordering "I don't like it" territory though I understand their points when looking at the definitions. We have sources that go beyond evaluating Giraffedata's actions on Wikipedia. The references are not circular as the article came after the media reporting on Giraffedata. (The article creator @Ritchie333 could perhaps chime in if they could.) It looks like February 2015 was when media outlets published about it. – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• DOBES