Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese Aramaic (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus‎. While eligible for another relisting, the deletion of this article has been discussed for a total of seven weeks across three AfDs over the past year, with no consensus, and no additional participation in the last five days. The nom's arguments have not been adequately refuted, but there is also no support for deletion, and no ATD has been proposed. I second the relister's recommendation of a one year moratorium, and suggest that a fourth AfD, if opened before 17 January 2026, should be procedurally closed as disruptive by any uninvolved editor. The content of this page is not a hoax, nor are there any copyright- or BLP-violations here, so I see no harm in parking this issue for at least a year before we tackle it again. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

"Lebanese Aramaic" is an unattested variety and the term is not used in the literature — the article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOR. It relies almost entirely on an article by a Maronite cultural association (and even it does not use the term "Lebanese Aramaic"), which is not a valid scholarly source (WP:SOURCE) and contains fringe views that are very far outside of the linguistic consensus such as that that "West" Syriac is an "Aramaized" descendent of Caananite. None of the other sources used in the article mention "Lebanese Aramaic", but rather Aramaic or Syriac — the "history" of the alleged variety is collated (violating WP:SYNTH) from discussions of Aramaic and Syriac in general, not from "Lebanese Aramaic" specifically. Most of the linguistic content of the article does not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" (as this variety is unattested and thus undescribed), but rather Syriac or even Lebanese Arabic. In the previous discussion from December 2023 on whether the article should be deleted, two users came out in favour of keeping it, leading to a "no consensus" result and the article being kept. However, at no point did either of the two users touch on any of the of the arguments against keeping the article (i.e. in actually referencing editorial policy), with one user even making the false claim that Lebanese Arabic is primarily descended from Aramaic ("the current spoken Lebanese is a continuation of Surien"). No valid sources have been added since the discussion in December 2023. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep concerns from the nominator not withstanding, it seems that if there is an issue here, the best route is going to try and clean it up first before deletion. Perhaps there are other references out there. There seem to be many in this article, and this definitely does not appear to be original research. I find it hard to believe that a language that existed for hundreds of years cannot pass GNG standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As said, the article does have references, but they crucially do not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" at all, as this is not a term used in the literature, meaning their use violates NOR. Western Aramaic and Syriac are both attested languages — "Lebanese Aramaic" is not. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • If that's true, then it shouldn't hurt to wait just to be safe to ensure there isn't something else out there mentioning Lebanese Aramaic. Happy to change my opinion if no one comes forward with new information. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as a 2nd nomination already existed prior to this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese Aramaic (2nd nomination), I have moved this to a 3rd nomination page Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that this is the 3rd AFD for this article over the past year. If this one also closes as "No consensus", as the other two did (or "Keep") then let's set a moratorium on a fourth AFD for at least another year (wait until 2026).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: As already discussed in the previous nominations both Wardini and Bawardi specifically mention the subject along with various other sources in the page describing a distinct dialect. This seems to be more of an issue with other sources and deleting the entire page itself because of this would be overkill rather than an improvement. Red Phoenician (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have taken a look at the sources you mention and that is the basis of my conclusion that the article should be removed. You cannot simply say that the sources exist — you have to demonstrate that their usage in this context isn't erroneous / doesn't violate Wikipedia criteria.

  
  • Where does Bawardi discuss "Lebanese Aramaic"? The Bawardi book cited in the article is a book on "Phoenicianist" nationalism ("The Lebanese-Phoenician Nationalist Movement"), not a work of linguistics, and the quotation that uses the term "Lebanese Aramaic" is a citation of nationalist vernacular Arabic-language poet Maurice Awad — i.e. the text does not come directly from Bawardi. The citation crucially does not discuss any aspects of the alleged language variety at all — it is entirely a nationalist statement about cultural continuity and is not relevant to the science of linguistics. This is not a valid source for the claims being made in the article.

  
  

  • Wardini's work is entirely based on the proposed Aramaic etymology of placenames in Lebanon, not of any *attested* Aramaic usage. This does not constitute significant coverage in the linguistic or Semiticist literature — this violates notability guidelines and collating it with other sources that do not at all discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" in any way constitutes original research.

  
  

  • You say that this is "along with various other sources", but what are these sources? I've checked the references and none of them back up the claims in the article. They at best discuss Western Aramaic or even Syriac in general; the most cited source in the article is a Maronite pamphlet that contains multiple false claims, and some of the sources are political science papers that do not discuss language (this is also the case of Bawardi's book which is about nationalist ideology, not linguistics), and so on. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 06:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  First you claimed and requested that there were no mentions of Lebanese Aramaic but now that I have provided them you have moved the goalposts by claiming they are not notable enough. Wardini himself states that his study is to find “a large enough sample where much of the phonology and morphology and part of the lexicon of Lebanese Aramaic can be elucidated”[1] so I am not sure what you are getting at unless you’re arguing that many settlements in Lebanon have Aramaic etymologies but that there was never an Aramaic language presence in the region. Akopian, Hitti, Mozaya, and Issa all discuss Aramaic (also referred to as Syriac as explained above) pertaining specifically to Lebanon. Furthermore, please provide sources backing your accusation of false claims and Syriacpress is not even a Maronite "pamphlet"…although that raises the question of why it would even be an issue if the website was from members of a certain people group in the first place. Red Phoenician (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify two things:

  
  

  • I am not claiming that there was "never an Aramaic presence in the region", nor did the user that previously nominated the article for deletion. What is being argued is that "Lebanese Aramaic" is an unattested and undescribed variety and has not been subject to significant coverage in the literature.

  
  

  • There is no issue with any author belonging to any particular religious group. I was referring to the series of articles published in Syriacpress and attributed to "Amine Jules Iskandar", who is is (according to Syriacpress) the "President of the Syriac Maronite Union–Tur Levnon". He repeatedly makes the following two false claims throughout his articles: "Syriac dialects [...] originate from Mesopotamian (Assyrian) and Canaanite (Phoenician)". The issue is not that the author happens to be a Maronite, but that his texts are political texts and not linguistic works.

  
  

  As for the other four sources you mentioned:

  
  

  • Mozaya is a very brief study of Lebanese Arabic that lists a dozen Arabic words or so and proposes Syriac etymology for them. It does not discuss or analyse "Lebanese Aramaic" at all.
  • Issa also seems to be an analysis of Arabic, not of "Lebanese Aramaic." In its abstract it says that it looks at words in "Arabic, Syriac, Latin and the Lebanese vernacular".
  • Hitti is a history of Lebanon, and it mentions both Western Aramaic and Syriac as they are of course part of Lebanon's history. I do not see where it discusses "Lebanese Aramaic."
  • Akopian likewise mentions Western Aramaic, but does not seem to discuss "Lebanese Aramaic".

  saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 13:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:Article is about a notable subject backed by sources

Maropedia1 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2025 (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.