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.

Voiced velar lateral fricative (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 )

We should delete this page since of this. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions , deleted contributions , logs, filter log , block log ) 01:22, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

this is not a helpful AfD, so I will clarify: consonant does not appear in any reliable sourcing. I don't know if I am at liberty to be counted in supporting deletion, as I had filled out a deletion request immediately before this overwrote it (E: I changed my opinion to keep in a comment below, following more reliable sourcing) ~ oklopfer (💬) 01:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Regardless, this was proposed for deletion previously. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions , deleted contributions , logs, filter log , block log ) 01:46, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

And I don't know if uncontroversial. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions , deleted contributions , logs, filter log , block log ) 01:47, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment. @Oklopfer: and @BodhiHarp: There are several reliable book and journal sources which use the term. For example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. That said, I can't find a single source directly discussing this as a concept in detail. It's clearly a sound that exists and is used in more than one language, because linguists studying languages have recorded the sound and identified it in languages in these sources. However, it is not a common sound. This might be better covered in some sort of list rather than in a stand alone article. Perhaps redirect to List of consonants per WP:ATD?4meter4 (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  The SOWL example from Archi language absolutely is reliable, and I can add it to the page later. Thanks for finding that. Given the source, I'd now say keep ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Archi is pre-velar though. - BᴏᴅʜıHᴀᴙᴩ (talk, contributions , deleted contributions , logs, filter log , block log ) 02:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  According to a single and arguably less reliable source. I see no reason to disagree with L&M here. ~ oklopfer (💬) 02:23, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥ talk 04:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment Like the nominator's earlier AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voiceless glottal affricate, an inadequate nomination statement has been provided. AfD users should not be expected to go and read discussions at linked topics. Please provide a valid basis for deletion in the nomination statement. It's also not clear to me why you replaced a PROD that was earlier on the article. Had you left that in place, the article would have been deleted if uncontested. It's now resulted in an unnecessary quagmire. Viewed in conjunction with things on your talk and at DRV, I do wonder if this a type of breaching experiment. Local Variable (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Comment Being involved in both situations, there were apparent reasonable grounds in both cases; so while I don't think it goes as far as breaching experiments, their haste to file requests is clearly negligent, and likely borderlining. Because they have a history of questionable behavior, I would believe their intention with linking to talk pages is trying to show wider backing, but failure to follow proper procedure seems to be a consistent habit. ~ oklopfer (💬) 07:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Modern Chinese characters (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 concept of "Modern Chinese characters" is not well-defined in the article, and not independently notable. the article duplicates coverage of articles like Chinese characters and the "main articles" linked throughout. ltbdl (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• keep This is the third AfD nomination, and the keep arguments in the first two still apply. [N]ot well-defined is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and not independently notable is overcome by the dozens of sources in the article, particularly the Chinese language sources. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  [N]ot well-defined is WP:NOTCLEANUP

  what? if a topic is not well defined, it shouldn't have an article. ltbdl (talk) 06:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  The article defined "modern Chinese characters" as "the Chinese characters used in modern languages, including Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese"; supported by specific and more detailed contents in the following sections. What are the reasons for the declaration that the topic is not well defined here? Ctxz2323 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  modern languages is vague at best. chinese characters have essentially not changed since the creation of regular script, circa 230, so "modern" is meaningless. if "modern" means Simplified Chinese characters or shinjitai, there already are articles on those.

  also, korean and vietnamese don't use chinese characters in their modern forms. ltbdl (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  There are several textbooks on 'Modern Chinese characters", as mentioned in the previous "Articles for deletion" discussion, including this one of Essential of Modern Chinese Characters – Homa & Sekey Books, the latest version of which is published by the Commercial Press, another prestigious Chinese publisher. And there are national standards like the List of Frequently Used Characters in Modern Chinese, all on "Modern Chinese characters". Ctxz2323 (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Modern Chinese characters include both modern simplified and traditional characters, which have been standardized in both forms and sounds (as introduced in the article and the spin-off articles). That means the situation is not the same as circa 230. Ctxz2323 (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

keep Explanation to "the article duplicates coverage of articles like Chinese characters and the "main articles" linked throughout.": The "duplicate" contents in Chinese characters are mostly summaries of contents from Modern Chinese characters. And the "main articles" are split-off articles with expanded coverages of the corresponding sections in Modern Chinese characters. Ctxz2323 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

what is covered in Modern Chinese characters that isn't covered in Chinese characters or another article? ltbdl (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A lot. For example: there are more content on the List of Commonly Used Standard Chinese Characters in Modern Chinese characters#Mainland China than in Chinese characters#People's Republic of China. And the contents of Modern Chinese characters#Orders is limited to its application in Chinese characters#Dictionaries and much less covered there. Ctxz2323 (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

content on the List of Commonly Used Standard Chinese Characters is better covered in the article about the list.

the contents of Modern Chinese characters#Orders is better covered in Chinese character orders. ltbdl (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Scholarly sources treat modern Chinese characters as a separate subject, satisfying WP:GNG. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 12:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Noric language (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 article is poorly sourced, only single distinct source exist, and I wasn't able to find more actual sources. Two inscriptions cannot be considered a separate language for at least linguistic reasons. Instead, maybe we should create an Eastern Celtic article which will combine all views on the entire topic, like this? From Alba, Celtoi, (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, Austria, and Slovenia. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:02, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

European Summer School in Logic, Language and 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 )

In 16 years of article existence the sole source is primary. Nothing in google news, 1 hit in gscholar. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Events. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment I'm not 100% sure yet if sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG, but it doesn't seem like a proper WP:BEFORE was done here. I'm actually seeing 9,270 results on Google Scholar and a quick Google search turns up this and this and this and more. Botterweg (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Education, and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Comment. Redirecting and merging to the Association for Logic, Language and Information would be a very sensible alternative to deletion here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Destructionism (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 )

Formerly a DICDEF, the LLM expanded version is something of a WP:SOAP for this one specific use of, in reality, a rather generic political pejorative. (Other uses include for abolitionism and protectionism, apparently) If scope is limited to the Mises sub-sense of the word, it would seem to me to fail WP:NFRINGE by substantial margins. (Though, it may still fail even without limiting to independent, non-fringe sources, given that the definition whatever these people associate with statism and socialism, which isn't really a coherent topic)

For the most part, sources using the term in the sense covered are written by the folks at the Mises Institute. Statism and the Economy and The Problem with Socialism are by senior fellows, The Left, The Right and The State, their founder and chairman. For news sources, we apparently have this article published by the American Institute for Economic Research... when you argue the entire field of "modern macroeconomics", i.e., the current state of the field you're writing about... well, that kind of outs you as perhaps a little outside of the mainstream, if we subject the source to rigorous (or even not so rigorous) scrutiny. We're not here to host an argumentative essay about statism (more commonly known as socialism, in the sense of "the government does stuff", not in a serious mainstream sense) as the Mises people et al. show, there are plenty of places that will do that.

On the political sense of the term as a whole (i.e., including Reagan's use in referring to protectionism), I am still unconvinced that we could write anything beyond the DICDEF, simply because most of the sources show mere use, and do not provide any secondary analysis. I am more willing to be persuaded on this point though, should anyone show up with WP:THREE. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Politics, and Economics. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:11, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete per nom. LLM generated content still has no place on Wikipedia. CabinetCavers (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete per WP:TNT - a horrible mess of AI and OR. Bearian (talk) 13:53, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Esperanto Association of Britain (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 )

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

This organization does not appear to be notable. All of the current sourcing is to the EAB itself, and a books and news search finds nothing but passing mentions, certainly nothing close to the in-depth coverage required by WP:ORGCRIT. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and United Kingdom. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:58, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - Sorry but didn't find any notable sources either. Ovedc (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep per the WP:GNG and WP:NGO. The organization has a national scope (covers all of Britain) and has significant coverage in independent reliable sources.

See [8], [9]. The second source points to "Forster’s (1982) sociological study of the Esperanto movement in Britain ", which refers to the book "The Esperanto Movement: Contributions to the Sociology of Language" by Peter G. Forster. This is a book-length study of the Esperanto Movement, which according to the second source includes information such as statistical surveys.

Further coverage in [10], [11], [12], [13] (interesting story about this organization's relative decline in recent times - enough to qualify as WP:SIGCOV as well). Katzrockso (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment I haven't looked at the other ones, but the Guardian article is definitely a passing mention. The only thing the article tells you about the association is that they used to have expensive headquarters and that they have a phone number in Stoke-on-Trent. Aŭstriano (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oxford Mail article about fampus Esperanto poet Marjorie Boulton, member of EAB, from 2017:

https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/15560493.obituary-esperanto-poet-marjorie-boulton/

Guardian article from 2017:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/06/saluton-the-surprise-return-of-esperanto

Mentalfloss.com article from 2020:

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/627963/esperanto-universal-language-experiment

Derbyshire Times obituary of Ian Carter, former EAB President:

https://www.legacy.com/uk/obituaries/derbyshiretimes-uk/name/ian-carter-obituary?id=56496503 ~2025-34840-33 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks, I think we have three sources as candidates now. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:15, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Where does it say either that the HQ is expensive or even mention the phone number? The EAB is mentioned in the first para setting the scene. The article mentions the former location (the 'Tudor House' is a college building nearby that used to be rented for classes), the name of an official and former administrator, a reported increase in the beginners' courses being offered, general information about the language's structure, details of the former HQ, and its future on the internet via various apps, in particular Duolingo, and a few individual testimonies. I call that more than a passing mention. ~2025-34840-33 (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Are we talking about the same article? I am talking about this one: [14]. "But whereas the Esperanto Association of Britain once enjoyed expensive headquarters in Holland Park, London, today its website directs you to a number in Stoke-on-Trent where the association's representative is away on holiday". This is the first mention of the association, halfway through the article. Aŭstriano (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Apologies, I referred to the Guardian article of 2017. Evidently you referred to the one of 2005. So, I would say that the article of 2017 is more than a passing mention. ~2025-35058-81 (talk) 10:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

A BBC report from 2008:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7505820.stm

A BBC report from 2010:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8501196.stm

A BBC report from 2012:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-16560906

A BBC radio report from 2015:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0505zw9 ~2025-34840-33 (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Keep if more reliable, independent sources can be found that give significant coverage to the EAB. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The "rule of three" is informal, but significant coverage in 3 reliable sources should, at a bare minimum, meet WP:GNG.

• Shakespeare in Esperanto, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust.
• Universal Soldiers: The Individuals Keeping the Esperanto Language Dream Alive, Mental Floss.
• Esperanto speakers celebrate 125th anniversary, BBC. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As suggested above, J. A. Large, The artificial language movement (1985), "The Esperantists: A British Case Study", pp106–111. ISBN 0631144978 is a strong reference. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment There's 6 fairly critical pages on the history of BEA and EAB in Andrew Large's The Artificial Language Movement (1985). Both are covered in this article, and searching for BEA's name seems to find more early references. (Indeed, it's not immediately obvious to me whether they are actually two different organisations or just two different translations of the Esperanto name...) Adam Sampson (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Yes, they also go by the name "Esperanto-Asocio de Britio". Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:57, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Comment: Kwekubo has made many substantial and welcome improvements to the article. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

La Brita Esperantisto (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 )

Per WP:Fancruft. No WP:SIGCOV independent of the subject. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, United Kingdom, and England. Aŭstriano (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥ talk 13:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Redirect to Esperanto Association of Britain#Publications so that editors may selectively merge any encyclopedic content to that article. Katzrockso (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  information Note: I've just nominated that article for deletion as well. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esperanto Association of Britain. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete per nom. This is a non-notable publication of a non-notable organization. There already is a mention at the above suggested redirect target (if it survives AFD), and anything more would be pretty WP:UNDUE. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 04:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I provided more than sufficient sourcing to establish the notability of the organization, a redirect is proper because it directs the reader precisely to where information about this content exists. There is no reason to delete when a valid redirect target that covers the exact same topic exists - a redirect would be recreated in the long-run anyways. Katzrockso (talk) 11:04, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ergative-genitive case (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 )

Per this discussion on WikiProject linguistics, this doesn't appear to be an actual grammatical case recognized in the literature. The cited sources use neither the term itself nor its supposed glossing abbreviation. Botterweg (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Botterweg (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Gellish (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 )

Almost entirely unsourced for more than a decade, PROD was seconded but removed, likely doesn't meet WP:GNG. FaviFake (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Courtesy pings: Bearian, Cyclopia. FaviFake (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - while it's sourced, I don't consider that to be significant coverage. Your views might differ. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:12, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Revertive case (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 cannot find evidence of this noun case existing, let alone being used in Manchu. Has been unsourced since creation. A PROD was declined and a source was added, but the source is on a conlang and does not mention it. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and China. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - I looked for sources and couldn't find anything other than Wiki mirrors and a couple seemingly wiki-inspired Reddit posts. I also poked around a Manchu grammar to see if this could be a nonstandard term for something real, but the slipper didn't seem to fit anything. I also notice that user who started the article also started several others about Manchu cases that don't seem to appear in any sources. Botterweg (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(削除) Going out on a bit of a limb, I wonder if it's relevant that the creator of the article was active on Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. Botterweg (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC) (削除ここまで)[reply ]

Upon further reflection and given some of the author's other fishy case articles turning out to have a basis in reality, I think this was an honest mistake rather than a hoax. Botterweg (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete not only can I find no evidence of this existing, the description is nonsensical - if anything "something going backwards to another" sounds like aspect, not case. -- LWG ^talk 16:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete - for the same reasons as the above, but also because I don't think it makes sense to have an article on a case that exists in only one language (unless there's significant coverage of it of course - not the case here!) --//Replayful (talk | contribs) 22:24, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete To small of a subject for it's opwn page and I cannot find any articles to back up the subject. Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gommeh 📖 🎮 18:18, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete. Not enough content to make an article even if the objections already made can be overcome. Athel cb (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete Article barely has any comment, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Foreign language (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 )

Whatever this article might have once been, it's been rendered a useless slop puddle by LLM-crazed editors. Essentially the entire article is duplicative of Language acquisition, Language education, and Multilingualism, plus likely a couple of others in the "see also" list at the bottom, and those articles at least don't have "In summary..." at the end of every section. Get rid of the duplicated content and you have a WP:DICTDEF. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Education. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Delete per nom. There is just so much wrong with this article it could also even fit the criteria for blowing it up and starting over. CabinetCavers (talk) 12:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'd also be OK with WP:BLAR'ing it if we can't figure out how best to start over. Thoughts? Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete: LLM, delete. We can't/shouldn't verify each and every citation given to even see if it's true or not, that is a waste of the editor's time here. No inline citations either, which doesn't help. Easiest is to delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. This is a longstanding article since 2004; the very beginning of the encyclopedia. We have years of article history since before LLM editing was even a thing. Simplest thing to do is revert the article to the time from before any LLM content was added. What we shouldn't do is delete the lengthy history of contributors over the past 21 years in an article that is clearly on a notable topic. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and LLM cleanup shouldn't be done through deletion in articles that have lengthy editing histories prior to LLM editing. That would set a very bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I tried to restore several sections that were marred by LLM editing, but unfortunately this article has not been in a very good state since before 2022. -- Recon rabbit 18:01, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  It's a duplication of several articles anyway. It serves no purpose. Drafting a 20 yr old article doesn't fix the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete: Per nom. As an ATD, we could restore the article to what it was before LLMs turned it into slop, but I'm not sure how practical that would be. We'd need way better sourcing, and I haven't done any research on this so I can't say whether or not it would work, but it may be good to look into. Gommeh 📖 🎮 20:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep LLM additions have already been removed. The article is not a duplicate, it is a broad-concept article that should provide an overview of language acquisition, language education, multilingualism, and other topics. Kelob2678 (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep because the reversions have mooted the problem. As we go forward, we may have to do this more often. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Delete, utter trainwreck of an article without any clear topic. Consider this unsourced gem from it:

  "Although significant differences between the definitions of second language and foreign language may be hard to find as the two terms are often taken as synonyms, research has been carried out to shed light on the differentiating traits of the two. The distinction between acronyms TESL (Teaching of English as a Second Language) and TEFL (Teaching of English as a Foreign Language) shows the attention different researchers have paid to the concepts of foreign language and second language. "

  What even is this other than WP editor commentary trying to justify this as a topic mid-article? We already have a fairly cohesive article at Second language, and there's no apparent reason why this should exist. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:59, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Your yourself state that this is unreferenced. Here is a quote from RS:

  Foreign language learning and teaching refer to the teaching or learning of a nonnative language outside of the environment where it is commonly spoken. A distinction is often made between ‘foreign’ and ‘second’ language learning. A second language implies that the learner resides in an environment where the acquired language is spoken. In the area of research, the term second language acquisition (SLA) is a general term that embraces foreign language learning and investigates the human capacity to learn languages other than the first language once it has been acquired.

  The article is not only about learning, its scope includes topics of papers such as Foreign language effect in decision-making: How foreign is it? and Automatic processing of foreign language documents Kelob2678 (talk) 09:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The LLM-generated content appears to have been dealt with, but is there is a viable topic here, or is it duplicative by definition?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete. Violates WP:MOS + reads more like an essay at best (削除) and a potential copyvio at worst (削除ここまで). -- in the club bumping that 09:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  This is not copyvio, as the text in the article existed since 2011[15] and the preprint was published in 2014. So it is the latter that plagiarized the former. Kelob2678 (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete WP:N has two arms. A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets WP:GNG or a relevant SNG, BUT only if it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. This article is a WP:DICDEF. What is it about? It can't be about languages in general, because it would be fork of all the language articles we have. It is specifically about a concept of a language that is foreign. But the only thing that makes a language foreign is that it is a language spoken by foreigners. There is no encyclopaedic subject there. It is all dictionary definition, and what we have in the article meanders into the subject of other pages, because there is no tightly defined subject here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Vranyo (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 )

None of the sources can be considered reliable when it comes to the Russian language and culture. I tried searching for any reliable sources in both English and Russian, but none support the definition of "Vranyo" given in the article.

Most of the sources used in the article are political opinion pieces written by journalists, where the concept of "Vranyo" is mentioned in passing to support a larger point [1,2,3,4,8,9,10].

Out of the sources where that isn’t the case, [5] is indeed written by a Professor of Russian and Slavonic Studies. However, it is still an opinion piece, and very remotely supports the definition of "Vranyo" given by the article. It also uses "one wag on Reddit" as one of its sources, raising questions regarding the academic quality of the piece.

For sources [6,7], the article gives a quote of a Russian-American professor of history, but nothing in the sources indicates that the given quote has any relation to the concept of "Vranyo".

[11] is a book on workplace practices, also mentioning "Vranyo" in passing to support a larger point. The author is a Professor of Sociology with nothing to suggest he’d be an authoritative source on Russian language and culture.

As one of the editors in the old talk suggested, it does seem to be the case that the concept of "Vranyo", as used by the article, is a concept that a small group of English-speaking journalists have decided to label using the Russian loanword "Vranyo", completely detached from the actual word "Vranyo" in the Russian language.

In this regard, it is quite interesting, but requires more original research. If the original contributor would like to completely rewrite the article, I am not against incubating the article, but as it currently stands, I would suggest DELETE

--Deliberate Baobab (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think we need WP:OR. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, and the article is sourced. The article has over eleven references, all of them including the word/concept, including experts and scholars, Russians and non-Russians, but it doesn't seem to matter since this article appears to have struck some kind of nerve.

This is the English Wikipedia, so if "Vranyo" here has a different connotation than it does in the general Russian language or on the Russian Wikipedia, that's fine. If you want a more Russian POV, you could provide reliable sources for that rather than suggesting that the entire article be deleted, given that whether some people like it or not, this definition of "Vranyo" does exist and it would be silly of a neutral encyclopedia to delete it per WP:NPOV. I'm not against adding some good Russian sources if they can be found, if simply having "in Russian, the literal translation is x" would make you feel better. TylerBurden (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

WP:CONTEXTMATTERS None of the cited sources are written by experts in the appropriate field. Please refer to my commentary in the orignal message regarding the quality of the used sources. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If you don't think they're experts, then that's your POV, some of them are literally described as such by secondary references. For example, "Galeotti, an expert and prolific writer on Russia".

We're just in WP:IDONTLIKEIT territory, I get that this might not fit with certain people's own narratives about Russia or that it might even be considered offensive to some, but thankfully we have WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources (WP:RS). Yes, Galeotti is an expert, but an expert in Russian crime and security. He is not a reliable source on Russian language and culture, and his opinions do not represent the mainstream academic view. With all the sources being not unlike this one, the article currently puts undue emphasis on a WP:FRINGE theory held by a minority.

Now, the article is not completely hopeless, and could be rewritten in a draft space so it is up to the standarts of Wikipedia, but I would argue there is not enough quality research on the topic yet. Deliberate Baobab (talk) 07:54, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This isn't only about the Russian language, it's about the term in English, because we're on the English Wikipedia. If it's a fringe view, then go ahead and provide some sources debunking the term and concept, because surely someone would be calling it out when high profile sources cover it. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Perhaps due to how niche this is, I wasn't able to find any authoritative sources discussing the topic at all, whether supporting the view of the article, or opposing it. But I'll try searching again.

All in all, I believe I made my argument on the non-reliability of the sources, so I'll let more experienced editors weigh in from here on.

On an unrelated note, in your experience, do interested editors usually come upon AfD discussion such as this one on their own, given time, or would something like a post on a Wikipedia noticeboard by neccessary here to get more opinions? Deliberate Baobab (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So there's all the sources cited on the article (over a dozen at this point) actually supporting and discussing the term and you can't find a single one debunking them or the concept itself, I don't buy the excuse of it being "niche", because if it was, there wouldn't be this amount of sources covering the topic. It seems the actual WP:FRINGE view here might be the one that this is some imaginary thing invented by western journalists.

I don't think it's necessary to do anything further than await input from others. TylerBurden (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Perhaps worth a note to reviewers, this new account appears to be a WP:SPA. TylerBurden (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Draftify per nom - over half the references used in the article mention vranyo never or only have passing mentions. Jalapeño (u t g) 17:49, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Every single reference specifically mentions the term, this is a blatantly false statement and the timing here is also convenient since you added this the same day you started engaging in a content dispute with me on Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present). TylerBurden (talk) 10:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I already checked them before submitting this !vote. Source 7 doesn't mention it. Sources 10 and 8 are duplicates, sources 1, 2, and 3 are paywalled, source 11 only mentions it twice and doesn't delve further into it. There is also nothing showing vranyo is a Russian concept in particular, rather than just a concept that happens to be part of Russian culture. For me, the sources don't show that vranyo merits its own article just yet. Jalapeño (u t g) 11:26, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Draftify. As the article stands now, the sources fail WP:SIGCOV, but reliable sources can be found. If I search for "vranyo" in quotation marks, a search on Google Scholar yields 106 results, a search on EBSCO yields 95 results, and a search on JSTOR yields 19 results. Z. Patterson (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Keep. I don't have time to go into much more detail right now, but the sourcing as it stands seems plenty sufficient to demonstrate notability already. Multiple sources discuss the topic in significant depth and even allude to further academic study. This is discussed not just as a WP:DICDEF, but as the concept behind the word, as a part of Russian culture. Here's one from 1962 that appears to go into great depth, although it's paywalled beyond the first page, unfortunately. The current sourcing is certainly passable, and appears quite improvable. This doesn't even need draftification, which tends to be reserved for things that are just really nowhere close yet. And for what it's worth, I consider myself a pretty staunch deletionist, but this one looks fine. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I have yet to come across a non-political source that discusses vranyo. The article you mentioned was published in the "Problems of Communism" journal (can't find if it's peer-reviewed), and is available at [16] under the 1962 folder, issue 2. As is the case with all the sources on the topic, I highly doubt the academical quality and reliability of this source. WP:RS

  On the second page, what the author claims to be a "great prerevolutionary statement" on "vranyo" is actually a humorous short story published in a collection called "Humorous Stories".

  The source also doesn't support the claim made in the Wikipedia article. As the Wiki article currently stands:

  "[Vranyo is] a lie being told despite it not being expected to be believed, but the person being told the lie goes along with it anyway". While the most concrete definition of vranyo in the source is:

  "Thus an accusation of indulging in vranyo is likely to be merely affectionate and adds up to little more than a charge of possessing a lively imagination".

  Most of the other sources directly contrast "lozh" and "vranyo", while the source:

  "[It should be a] reminder that [lozh and vranyo] are at least juxtaposed if not overlapping concepts, and that one could be too pernickety in trying to draw a firm line between them". Deliberate Baobab (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  This is discussed not just as a WP:DICDEF - but it is indeed explained through a dictionary-like definition of the word in most of the sources. I.e. they say: this is what the word means in Russian, as if it were defined in a dictionary. The distinction between the dictionary definition and the word as a reference to the concept "behind the word", "as a part of Russian culture" isn't drawn anywhere (I don't think these two could be sharply distinguished anyway). — Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete. There's definitely no such concept in Russian culture that's distinct from the global concept of lie, and its usage in English language looks like a political neologism that doesn't seem to be notable per comments above. Finstergeist (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Delete. I thank @Deliberate Baobab for opening this discussion. I'd note that the user does not appear to be a single-purpose account because they simply have no serious editing history to speak of. Lacking an editing history shouldn't mean that the user shouldn't open an AfD discussion.

Deliberate Baobab has already covered the key problems and I'd elaborate on them (partly restating some of my points from the talk page). I apologise for the extensiveness of the reply.

The fundamental problem is that the stated meaning of the word does not appear to exist in practice. The meaning is provided by people who are almost without exception not academically relevant in the study of Russian language, culture and society (so I'd expect linguists, sociologists, etc. being the sources, and not only e.g. journalists and military experts), solely in opinion pieces (sometimes with obvious political motivation), and the meaning does not correspond to what actually can be found in Russian sources. No Russian dictionary (I can provide probably a dozen examples) supports the rather extravagant meaning provided by the article. According to the extensive Oxford Russian Dictionary it's translated simply as 'lies' or 'nonsense', labelled as "informal". Have generations of linguists really missed this supposedly prominent meaning that (according to the current sources) the majority of Russian population is familiar with? Checking a variety of Russian news pieces and other texts online does not result in any usage examples where the meaning provided by the article is particularly needed or appropriate for understanding it - even the examples presented in Bermel's article seem to work fine by translating vranyo as 'bullshit' or with the terms provided by Oxford Russian Dict. Russian scholarly articles on the word make no mention of it either (more on that below). And purely personally - if anyone can provide at least a few examples of Russians writing/communicating in Russian unambiguously operating with this meaning, I'll be more than ready to take back much if not all of my criticism of the article. The following criticism that I provide, however, seems to align with my strong impression that the term doesn't have the stated meaning.

The oldest currently used source for the meaning is D. Shipler's article from the Cold War period. The procedure used for obtaining the "definition" disregarded normal linguistic procedure - it is based on one single speaker's (quite possibly hyperbolic) interpretation of the word, rather than on analysis of actual usage. I assume that a Wikipedia article about a word and its semantics should follow principles of scientific linguistics (see Linguistic description#Methods), i.e. Wikipedia should be consistent with itself, and not discard the principles in specific articles simply due to the inadequacy of the available sources. The other sources are not any more academically reliable:

Murray's source of the definition is "one of my colleagues". (Murray is "an educator specializing in the treatment of trauma".)

Horowitz's main example is from a fictional novel (note that the character who accepts the vranyo behaves in socially unusual ways: The Idiot ).

Gorokhova's source is her kindergarten "aunt Polya". This together with Shipler's description and perhaps Dostoyevsky's text (see below) is the strongest available source that at least some Russians do actively use the provided definition - though not necessarily that they really use the term in accordance with the definition they provide. Unprofessional native speakers' judgments of their language is by default not scientific, it is frequently classified as folk linguistics. Gorokhova can probably be regarded as a primary source.

Bermel's key source is literally a single reddit comment. And that's by far the most reliable and competently written source, the only one whose author has relevant academic background, and the only one that rises above being purely an opinion piece and directly showing (what are supposed to be) examples of usage of the term.

The reference to V. Medish has no value at all and isn't verifiable. It is sourced to Rachlin which does not provide any further information about Medish's statement, where it is sourced from, where Medish published his studies on vranyo, it's not even evident that Medish's quote is from his scholarly work (it doesn't sound like it) or that it's explicitly about vranyo (as noticed by Deliberate Baobab).

Horowitz refers to Dostoyevsky's 1873 essay. However, most of the essay itself operates with "vranyo" simply as lying, and doesn't necessarily entail both parties being aware of the lie. That element is mentioned only once in the text, in the context of people lying in public to impress others: "Разумеется, из них мало кто верит один другому, но расстаются они почти всегда один другим совершенно довольные и друг другу даже несколько благодарные." (The Russian text is available here.) I am not of the opinion that this is sufficient to count Dostoyevsky as using the article's definition of vranyo.

Since the meaning does not exist, or at the very least the sources aren't directly or indirectly based on studying it, every other source can spin up some new spicy detail about it, creating contradictions and an overall incoherent picture of the topic. The more sources are added, the less sense it all makes. The current WP article already contains one major contradiction:

"The concept of vranyo dates back to the Soviet period."

"Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, perplexed by the universality of vranyo, suggested in his essay Something about Lying (1873)"

If we took the other sources seriously and systematically, and not selectively, we'd easily create an even more contradictory article. Adding to the above inconsistency regarding how old the concept is, according to Rachlin Russians "have cultivated [it] for centuries as an art form", which seems to push back the origin of the term even further into the past.

Who uses vranyo? According to Bermel, typically the Russian government. According to Murray and Gorokhova, Russians in general (but not the younger generations, according to the latter). Bermel expands its meaning to US politics, specifically Trump. According to Shulman, however, in workplaces it is a universal phenomenon.

Why do Russians lie? Because they're being oppressed (Galeotti), out of contempt (Bermel), because they're ashamed of themselves (Dostoyevsky/Horowitz), or "just to keep in shape" (Medish/Rachlin).

Rachlin says Potiomkin villages were vranyo. Schillinger says Potiomkin villages were pokazukha.

It seems just about anything can be ascribed to vranyo. What sort of an article would we end up with if all these unrelated and more or less contradictory statements were accepted into it?

Now I'd also address some of TylerBurden's responses to the criticism:

TylerBurden is asking for sources that debunk the concept. The problem is that the concept really isn't all that well-covered or well-established, particularly not in publications where it might receive scrutiny by relevant experts. The sources are all mostly journalistic and even essayistic pieces that are very unlikely to receive systematic attention by e.g. a Russian language professor.

"This isn't only about the Russian language, it's about the term in English, because we're on the English Wikipedia."

Any Wikipedia can be about any term in any language. The article in fact mostly isn't about the term in English but in Russian - a few sources do ascribe vranyo to US politics as well but that claim is not reflected in the article, and there's one source talking about it in the context of workplaces without apparent cultural/national affiliation (it is unclear if other scholarship on workplace sociology uses the same term, or if it's the referenced author who introduced it into the context). As the basis and the bulk of the article is about the Russian concept, one expects sources with expertise in Russian culture and language, which are lacking.

"The article has over eleven references, all of them including the word/concept, including experts and scholars, Russians and non-Russians"

Actually just one scholar with truly relevant academic background (Bermel), and two Russians who both live and publish in the west. For an article that deals with an entire culture, including saying that the culture heavily promotes lying, even lying just for fun, I think we need something a bit more academically reliable.

How do Russian sources treat vranyo? As I said above, dictionaries say absolutely nothing in support of this idea, which can be taken to represent the consensus of literally generations of linguists. But we can also consider more specific and extensive scholarly works on lying in Russia, which sometimes do use the term vranyo, but never with the specific meaning found in the article, never as if it were a technical term. It is consistently a mere synonym or near-synonym to lozh'. I'd particularly note these two texts:

• В.А. Шаповалов, И.В. Истомина: «... Лгали им на каждом слове»: ложь в системе коммуникации русских крестьян и помещиков в конце XVIII — нач. ХХ вв. ["... They lied to them at every word": lie in the communication system of Russian peasants and landlords in the late 18th — early 20th centuries]

"Для дальнейшего рассмотрения поставленного вопроса следует особо подчеркнуть, что грань между словами «враньё» и «ложь» в разговорной и письменной речи практически неразличимо." = For the further study of the question it is necessary to stress that the difference between the words "vran'jo" and "lož'" in colloquial and written word is practically nonexistent. (p. 24)

• О.В. Кнорц: Ментальные сценарии с семантикой «неправда» в русской языковой картине мира (в сопоставлении с китайской) [Mental scenarios with semantics "untruth" in the Russian language picture of the world (in comparison with Chinese)]

On the basis of textual examples, the article establishes several semantic/conceptual differences between lozh and vranyo, as seen on the table on p. 5. E.g. lozh is marked by presence and vranyo by absence of usefulness for the liar, lozh is associated with a higher stylistic register and vranyo with lower, lozh is more typical for men and vranyo for women, etc. None of the differences has anything to do with the other party's (un)awareness of the lie, which is the key element of Wikipedia's vranyo. The article also includes an extensive paraphrase of A.D. Shmelev on p. 3 showing a slightly different view of the lozh-vranyo differences, though the paraphrase is somewhat confusing and circular. Nonetheless, in the extensive paragraph there is again not one mention of both parties' awareness of the lie.

While the two articles do not entirely line up with their interpretation (in part due to the different goals and methodologies), both are based on study of Russian language material and previous scholarship, and in sharp contradiction with the numerous sources by non-linguists currently referred to - many of them explain vranyo by contrasting it to lozh, but with completely different conclusions. It is also likely that further inquiry into Russian scholarship on lying would again result in absence of the usage of the term vranyo with the given meaning, and/or absence of the term altogether.

Finally, after one last search, it appears to me that the term was introduced into English by Donald Hingley in his articles (already discussed above) and his 1979 book The Russian Mind. One reviewer of the book, Gleb Struve, explicitly says:

"Hingley is wrong, however, in drawing a sharp distinction between the verbs врать (to fib), from which the verbal noun вранье is derived, and лгать (to tell lies) with its corresponding noun ложь (lie). The two are, in fact, interchangeable, and that is how Dostoevskij uses them."

To finish off: obviously, I'm for deleting the article. Perhaps the article can be kept, but in that case it should be edited in a way that clearly contextualises the claims that come from non-scientific observation and opinion pieces, as well as include the Russian sources that don't neatly follow the presented (re)definition of the term. Actually writing out e.g. "Vranyo is defined as [definition], according to D. Shipler's Russian friend, Murray's colleague, Gorokhova's kindergarten caretaker, and a reddit comment", as well as mentioning the contradictions found in the sources and not glossing them over, would likely result in a silly and confusing article - but that really would just fairly reflect the sources. An another alternative is looking for further sources such as the ones I provided above and refocusing the article onto lying in Russia and Russian culture in general; vranyo as currently presented may merit a brief mention in that context, as one of the descriptions of lying in Russian culture, although clearly with almost no presence in actual academic discourse. I do not think the proposed draftifying of the article can be satisfied because it doesn't seem substantially better academic sources can be found, aside from perhaps Hingley's works. The mentions I found on JSTOR appeared no more well-researched than what is already available (maybe a more careful look would find something better, I haven't checked them all in detail), and Medish who's referred to by Rachlin looks like a dead end.

— Phazd (talk|contribs) 01:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Keep. The sourcing appears to pass WP:SIGCOV, and appears to be published in reliable publications and by reliable authors. I'm not seeing a valid reason under policy to delete this. The delete arguments essentially boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions which frankly is an attempt to censor content. That's a no go per WP:NOTCENSORED.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis table would be helpful. For those suggesting the concept is indistinguishable from something we already have an article about, would a merge/redirect be appropriate here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×ばつ ☎ 13:38, 23 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Easy Languages (YouTube) (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 )

No WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG SpragueThomson ^talk 19:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Internet, and Germany. SpragueThomson ^talk 19:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Weak keep - there are two sources that look reliable and independent to me: Westfälischen Nachrichten and The Local, and the coverage in those two looks significant, although paywalled. The other sources don't seem to be independent, although I'm not 100% sure about the university website - are the people who run Easy Languages employees? It's a borderline, but I think there is probably enough. Lijil (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Weak keep: The subject appears to fall under the "anyone can pay and get published" for the ELTABB Journal source (https://eltabbjournal.com/ and specifically https://eltabbjournal.com/from-the-classroom-to-the-streets-how-easyenglish-brings-real-language-to-learners), which is not a valid indicator of notability under WP:GNG or WP:RS.

and the following sources can be considered for WP:GNG notability:

• https://www.wn.de/muenster/youtuberin-easy-german-kanal-sprache-kultur-3263313 regional coverage in a reputable outlet.
• https://www.uni-muenster.de/Alumni/schmid.html (NOTE : mention in the university alumni section.)
• https://www.thelocal.de/20211223/our-audience-is-so-diverse-what-its-like-to-teach-german-from-berlins-streets – interview in The Local.Unsosctent | Talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Schmear at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 4#Schmear (4 November 2025 – 23 November 2025)

• Wikipedia deletion sorting
• WikiProject Languages