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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and neither does removing an AfD from this page remove it from the main page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 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:deletion sorting|Language|sig=~~~~}} 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.
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:
In 2016, at Talk:Pomoz Bog, someone else asked why this isn't on Wiktionary. It sure looks like a few overzealous editors got a bit carried away with the ease of editing the wiki. I don't see the WP:POTENTIAL for an entire standalone encyclopedia article here about such a mundane phrase in a foreign language. --Joy (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)
I propose merging to Manualism (hand music) because this soundmaking technique is still accomplished by placement of the hand on the body and swiftly compressing air between the surfaces. There does not seem to be much potential for expansion of this into anything more than a stub, without substantially repeating content from the proposed target. Aspects of the practice such as the potential for juvenility and crudity are likewise the same for both. BD2412T 22:29, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. On the other hand, an article may be a stub even though many sources exist, but simply have not been included yet. Such a short page is better expanded than merged into a larger page
Oppose. You would need a source framing it this way to avoid OR/contradicting RS. The article itself implies that the musical framing is not the predominant one. MONTENSEM (talk) 14:27, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Was a redirect to politics, but turned into an article. This is however a WP:DICDEF and shouldn't be a separate article. Propose reinstating the redirect. Fram (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
There is an objection on the article's talk page written by another user:
"Sure, the singular "politic" is mentioned and defined in the Etymology section of the Politics article, but this article, Politic, includes a more complete definition (see the Meanings section) and expands on the word's history. That's why I think it should NOT be deleted. Signed, (signature removed so wiki doesn't consider it a seperate comment)"
Personally, I would say we should either keep the article or expand it into Politics#Etymology, per the previous objection. ~2026-56685-52 (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge into Politics anything that is citeable and not already there. In its current state, it is dictionary content. Cnilep (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Not a defining characteristic, and not even a correct article title (eponymous doesn't just mean "named after people", and most roads are named after something). Even just a list of "roads in Brussels named after people" would be a very long list of otherwise unrelated streets. Topic doesn't seem to have received attention as a group (only the disparity between roads named after men vs. roads named after women has been discussed). Fram (talk) 08:43, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Perhaps those other ones need to go as well, perhaps they have a better reason to remain. This article should be defended on its own merits. Fram (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
This article was modelled on List of eponymous roads in London (which is almost 20 years old), so I don't see why this one should be deleted while the London article remains. I agree that each article should be assessed on its own merits, but I believe the same standards should be applied consistently to both. -- Jhowie_Nitnek (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Mostly oppose Neutral. I do not see this article as being particularly problematic and/or needing deletion per se. Many list-type articles are not defined by a single subject, and the relational link is sufficiently characteristic. It is also well sourced. As for the title, the Cambridge English Dictionary gives the following definition "An eponymous adjective, place name, etc. is one that comes from the name of a person". Jason Lagos (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
And then they give a number of examples, many of which are not after a person... "Many list-type articles are not defined by a single subject"? I probably misunderstand what you mean, which list-type articles are not defined by a single subject, and what does that have to do with this nom? Fram (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
I was replying in terms of "a very long list of otherwise unrelated streets." That is precisely the point of a list-type article: it covers multiple subjects that share a common characteristic. Jason Lagos (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
... where that commonn characteristic is a topic of interest as evidenced by reliable sources discussing the topic. You could create such lists for Brussels streets by length (and you will have sources giving the length of individual streets), by type of street (avenue, boulevard, rue, ...), and so on. If the characteristic isn't defining, then it isn't a good list topic. And streets aren't any different whether they are named after a person, an animal, a river, a building, a country, ..., there is no good (external) reason presented to group them like this apart from "it's interesting". Fram (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Indeed, I was going by the lack of obvious problems in the article, whereas you are pointing at the absence of demonstrated grouping per WP:NLIST. I will change my answer to "neutral" then and leave the floor to other contributors. Jason Lagos (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, yes, I felt we were talking past each other somewhat. Fram (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete this trivial characteristic from which to create a list. Not much more to say about this one, but I don't see how anyone can argue notability or navigation or anything. –Deacon Vorbis(carbon•videos) 07:02, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete This looks potentially like WP:OR and even if it's not, the sourcing doesn't show it passes WP:NLIST. SportingFlyerT·C 00:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)
Don't find enough reliable sources to meet GNG. SVcode(Talk) 14:51, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: this discussion has been included in the AfD sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep see e.g.Jahaza (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment: I don't have the full text of The Dialects of Modern German, but the GBooks preview appears to mention Vogtländisch as one of the dialects used for everyday communication. That does not seem to me "significant coverage" as described by GNG. Cnilep (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BhikhariInformer📮(Ping me or else I won't see it) 15:53, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep There are sources listed in the German Wikipedia, 400+ hits in Google Scholar for "Vogtländisch", etc. A better explanation is needed as to why these sources are insufficient. Kelob2678 (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2026 (UTC)
All recent citations relating to an East Asian language family, and not Austric or Austro-Tai, come from 3 people: Stanley Starosta, George van Driem, and Michael Larish. The page is poorly written, involving an entirely irrelevant Distributions section. Van Driem also admits that this proposal does not adhere to the comparative method, according to the abstract in . I see no evidence or any reason to assume linguists take this proposal seriously, and the page would therefore fall under WP:FRINGE. Vampyricon (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:NFRINGE, a lack of consideration doesn’t necessarily make a topic rejected. Reliable sources are included, but the article could use cleanup (including removal of undue weight); I however do not see deletion as a solution for issues in notable articles, at worst, Stubify. - RealGatba (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Delete, per WP:NFRINGE. All the references on the proposal are from its proponents. No-one else seems to be interested in discussing it. That may not make it rejected, but it does speak to a lack of notability. Kanguole 19:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
The Oxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics mentions it once under one single paragraph about macrofamily proposals involving Chinese, and follows it up by saying it will likely not gain wider currency among scholars in Asian linguistics.
The second link (under [1]) mentions it in its review of Starosta's chapter. Also see its criticism (of all higher relationships):
The problem with historical linguistics at such a macro-level is that there are many competing attempts to establish macro-phyla. These macro-phyla may look convincing individually but are often mutually incompatible. One would therefore be inclined to look for alternative explanations such as contact, borrowing and bilingualism. However, although these phenomena are mentioned in the book, one feels that the authors make little use of them to explain the data they come across.
"Macrophyletic Trees of East Asian Languages Re-examined" does not mention the proposal at all, instead only mentioning Indochinese and Austric.
First Farmers: The Origins of Agricultural Societies explicitly says Starosta's ideas have never really been adopted by linguists. The author supports it, but he is not a linguist.
From what I can see, every time a linguist apart from the three proposers mentions it, they have been critical of it. I think this falls well under WP:NFRINGE.
And there's a more serious problem: The fact that the paper "Macrophyletic Trees of East Asian Languages Re-examined" has been cited without a single mention of said theory also highlights the major problem with this page, in that an innocuous term like "East Asian languages" would normally be a redirect to Languages of East Asia, like how Caucasian languages redirects to Languages of the Caucasus, but instead redirects to a fringe proposal. This page, at the very least, requires a move to something like East Asian macrofamily. Vampyricon (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
Merge to Stanley Starosta. I see no reason to dismiss this as fringe, but based on the article, the theory was accepted, as the nom says, by only two people (one, Larish, works at the same university in which Starosta worked), and based on a brief Google Scholar search, received very little feedback from others. This is not enough to have a standalone page on it. Kelob2678 (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Note: I think coverage any number of theories could be permitted if evidenced support "by only two people" in a large field is considered sufficient to not be WP:FRINGE; not sure this is a good line of argument. (not a vote). HiddenHistoryPedia (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk•contribs) 18:49, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep and rename toEast Asian language group, because the current title is widely used in its generic meaning: languiages of Eash Asia. As for notability, it is not a pseudocsience by some lingvofreak. The proponents are notable persons, with publications in reputable outlets. While their theories are not accepted, they got some attention of experts. I added a small section "Commentary" into the article. --Altenmann>talk 19:36, 9 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A theory not being accepted is a reason to modify article content, but not in and of itself a reason to delete. Do we have evidence that this theory is ignored enough to be deletion-worthy? Or is it valid as an article about an academic hypothesis that isn't widely accepted? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2026 (UTC)
Weak Keep and rename to East Asian language group. These kinds of linguistic proposals are often notable even if widely considered premature/unproven. I think there is enough here to support an article. C.f. Macro-Mayan languages which is similarly conjectural. Things less discussed than Nostratic or Altaic can still be worth an article if presented carefully. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2026 (UTC)
Macro-Mayan has had more than 3 proponents, and TMK none of the proponents claim it does not adhere to the comparative method. Vampyricon (talk) 08:53, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Comment Accepted or not, I do not think that the sources provided contain significant coverage of the idea. The Oxford Handbook, for example, contains a paragraph in the section "Other hypotheses", which covers Starosta (this article) and two other works. The second source says, This volume is the result of a workshop on phylogeny of East Asian languages, organized by Laurent Sagart and Stanley Starosta 29-31 August 2001 in Périgueux, France, so not independent. Kelob2678 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpartazHumbug! 09:17, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Comments
Leaning "Keep" and renaming. It is terribly written and the Vocabulary comparison table, if copied, might violate policy,
The List of proposed language families has 46 macrofamily and family hypotheses. Of these, 30 are "Under consideration", and 16 are "Widely rejected". Historical linguists and mainstream scholars have challenged and rejected this subject as an invalid genetic family (according to some sources, firmly rejected). However, it can be added to the list of rejected conjectures.
What does this mean? The subject should have more than enough written about it, especially from opponents, with more than the three people involved. Names such as Alexander Vovin, Marcel Erdal, András Róna-Tas, and Juha Janhunen, among them, have written on the subject. I do think the title is incorrect, and without digging too deep, "East Asian language group" does appear to be a better choice, which has not been rejected.
If the hypothesis was created by one man, and one more taking it up, I could see it being a fringe theory. With three apparently notable people involved, and the sure to be found adversarial or oppositional writings, I think the subject, even if off-base or inaccurate, should be covered. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Can you provide the sources that criticize Starosta's theory and contain significant coverage of it? Kelob2678 (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2026 (UTC)
Keep I don't agree with this proposal, but it's been thoroughly discussed enough times by plenty of notable scholars to merit its own article, much like Dene-Caucasian. Lingnanhua (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at: