Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpretation (linguistics)

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 merge to Language interpretation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation (linguistics)[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 11#Interpretation (version 2) for the full context. If I'm needed further, please ping me. BDD (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess the issue is whether the content merits an article of its own that is distinct from Language interpretation, and maybe Interpretation (philosophy). I don't have an opinion, but if the content is to be discarded, I think it would be more sensible to keep the page as a redirect to the dab section Interpretation#Language. Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Language interpretation if there is anything not already included there. There is discussion of the topic within linguistics, but it's the same topic. Cnilep (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question - isn't this AfD a bit more than "procedural"? This used to be a redirect but it looks to me that the RfD discussion was procedural and the "article" version is the thing being nominated for real. And it does not seem like the RfD discussion ended with a consensus on that. Pinging Steel1943, nominator at RfD. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: I'm trying to undrstand your query of me. Are you asking me how it ended up here? Just trying to figure this out since I am the nomimator of that discussion, not the closer of it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wanted to make sure that the current AfD is an actual article for discussion nomination, not a complex way to get some edit history deleted and then restore a redirect. Maybe that's a PEBKAC problem on my side, but I really did not find it clear. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:09, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think BDD is the person you're looking for to answer that question. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's procedural on my part. Some editors felt that this page would better be discussed for deletion as an article rather than a redirect due to its history. It previously went through an informal procedure called deletion through redirection (not true deletion), and the RfD effectively reversed that. --BDD (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Language interpretation as this seems closely linked to that and this is still questionable for its own convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 25 April 2016 (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.