Wikipedia:articles For Deletion Germanic-speaking World

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 delete‎. I see a consensus to Delete these articles. Liz ^{Read!
Talk!} 16:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Germanic-speaking world

[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)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same problems:

WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Sections are largely WP:COATRACKs of tangentially related stuff and WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed (e.g. Germanic-speaking world randomly combines bits and pieces of Germania/ Germanic peoples history, then an WP:UNSOURCED list of speakers of Germanic languages, then another WP:UNSOURCED table, and then two WP:SYNTHed tables about two Germanic languages in particular).

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, which deleted

following a very, very long series of precedents which established that language family is WP:NONDEFINING for countries.

Indirectly, this AfD is linked to:

ongoing Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables;
other follow-ups including "Comparison of the Baltic states" AfD;
- Update 20 June:

Comparison of the Baltic states has been deleted.
Comparison of the Benelux countries has been deleted.
Comparison of the Nordic countries has been deleted.

It's also worth noting that List of Austronesian regions was found to be "OR nonsense", and redirected. Germanic-speaking Europe already redirects to Languages of Europe#Germanic, and Romance-speaking Europe to Languages of Europe#Romance. So redirecting rather than fully deleting is perhaps also an option. But it is not my preference, because those articles usually have their own problems with sourcing, OR/SYNTH and whatnot. Before deciding we should redirect/merge articles, we should make sure we aren't just moving the problems to somewhere else without actually solving them. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Geography. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete, while there might be language topics that merit articles, creating articles from broad groups like "Germanic" or "Romance" is, as mentioned, trivia or OR. Iberophone could be deleted or redirected to the actual topic of Organization of Ibero-American States. Finno-Urgic countries seems a plausible search, so I would redirect that to Finno-Ugric languages. CMD ( talk) 12:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete. I agree with the reasoning given. We've seen over and over that people making these articles are either adding nothing to the articles we have about language families, or else what they are are adding are implied racial folk-theories. (The classic discussions we always have about how Afrikaners should be included, but not Jamaicans or Irish.) I think it is easier to source ways of dividing up Europe based on which alcoholic drinks they drink, or whether they cook with butter or olive oil, and I don't think we have articles on those. Language families are certainly discussed in Wikipedia as language families, but not as types of people. Correlations between languages and ancestry or cultures are for careful discussion within articles (if there are good sources) and not just things our editors may assume to be "obvious" without sources. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Couldn't have said it better myself. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 16:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep Iberophone and delete the rest. Unlike the other nominated articles, Iberophone is referenced to sources that deal with the concept, http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ and https://escholarship.org/uc/ssha_transmodernity and https://oei.int/ rather than to sources that deal with a specific language rather than a language family. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC) reply
When you boil it down to the essentials, Iberophone doesn't really amount to much. The article does not advance much further than a dictionary definition ( WP:NOTDICT) plus some WP:UNSOURCED or WP:SYNTHed "country comparison" data dumps, which are currently being considered for total deletion/removal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations#Rfc on Country Comparison charts/tables. It's either a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of Iberian Romance languages (=language sub-family, a branch of the Romance languages family), or just + Hispanophone + Lusophone. There is nothing more to add beyond 'Hey, did you know that Spanish and Portuguese are closely-related Romance languages that originated next to each other in the Iberian Peninsula, and also sit next to each other in South America? There's even a neologism for it: Iberophone. What great fun!' That's all there is to it, really. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 09:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Besides, the http://isdiber.org/paniberismo-e-iberofonia-2/ is very telling: it advances a certain political agenda by advocating for a geopolitical approach called pan-Iberism. It mixes supposed facts ("this reality") and opinions ("this proposal"): [There is a] substantial affinity between the two main Iberian languages (...). This reality means that, in geopolitical, geolinguistic and cultural terms, it is possible to speak of a large multinational space of Iberian-speaking countries that covers all the continents and is made up of more than thirty countries and more than 700 million people. This is exactly the kind of nonsense that we have been needing to delete and remove in recent years/months, in which language families and countries were mixed up to produce lots of WP:CROSSCAT generalisations and oversimplified framings of countries and territories (and their populations) in terms of the language family to which the native languages - which the majority of their inhabitants speak - belong. That's just a plainly WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING fact (which has no bearing on any native speaker's career per WP:OCEGRS, as precedents have repeatedly confirmed). And Wikipedia shouldn't play along with anyone trying to advocate for a certain political agenda based on - encyclopedically speaking - WP:TRIVIAL, WP:NONDEFINING facts. Nederlandse Leeuw ( talk) 10:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Additional thoughts on Iberophone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete all as original research. The other four are transparent synthesis and I'm convinced by Nederlandse Leeuw's analysis of Iberophone. –  Joe ( talk) 15:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete all per nom; unacceptable combinations of OR and synthesis. Iseult^Δx parlez moi 15:50, 25 June 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.