Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edolo language

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 Speedy keep‎ . Per WP:SKCRIT, there is no deletion rationale. Also, this appears a discussion better held at WP:PAM rather than AFD. There are eight unanimous !votes all arguing to oppose a merge/keep the article and so there is no point in continuing a discussion further. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edolo language

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Merge with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro_people Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Language, Ethnic groups, and Oceania. Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason given. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Default oppose. What's the rationale? –Austronesier (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no deletion rationale has been offered. If the nominator wishes to propose the merger of two articles the instructions are here and this can be speedily closed. Mccapra (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
how about this here Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a bit more to it than that, including adding tags to the top of both article pages, but basically yes, thus is a matter to be discussed at the article talk page, not at AfD. Mccapra (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how about here 1 and here 2 Mimi Ho Kora (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - languages are inherently notable, and this one seems well-referenced given its length.--IdiotSavant (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not much to add, languages are inherently notable as stated above. Pladica (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even minority languages, even tiny minority languages, are worth covering here. "Inherently notable" is one way to put it. Note that the merge proposal on the article talk page was closed as "Oppose". – .Raven ^.talk 05:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We merge a language article into the corresponding ethnicity only if there's no prospect for it to ever grow beyond a stub (that most typically happens for extinct undocumented languages). That's not the case here, there's enough literature out there for a fully developed article [1] (which is also enough to pass WP:GNG). – Uanfala (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all, there's no reason given. Second, it's notable and has multiple sources, and it passes GNG. // 💪Benzo Aid💪 🖊️ 16:12, 26 April 2023 (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.