It seems to be unreasonable to delete Romance Europe while we accept Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe entries. The fact that Romance Europe or Romance-speaking Europe is "an awkward and uncommon term" should not be the reason to delete this page, because it has a popular term - Latin Europe. However, the entry Latin Europe is a disambiguation page, so using the term Romance Europe or Romance-speaking Europe really helps. Yejianfei (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the original decision, as is stated above. Yejianfei (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If someone really believes the term must be Latin Europe instead of Romance-speaking Europe, then his/her suggestion should be moving Romance-speaking Europe to Latin Europe, after moving the original Latin Europe entry to Latin Europe (disambiguation). As a result, there is no reasonable reason to ask for deletion. Yejianfei (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, I guess. There's so much to nit-pick here, I'm not sure where to start. I guess in reverse chronological order. I don't see any evidence that Yejianfei contacted Spartaz (the closing admin) to discuss this, per WP:DELREVD #1. Also, a complicated close like this really deserves a closing statement that gives some insight into why the closing admin came to the conclusion they did. In the end, I'm not terribly excited by the AfD arguments on either side.
The delete side is arguing that this duplicates Romance languages, but I don't think it does. Romance languages is a linguistic treatment. This seems like it's more about political history (I've temp undeleted it for review). And awkward and uncommon term isn't much of an argument either.
On the other hand, the keep arguments are even worse; WP:OTHERSTUFF and listing raw search results do not make good arguments at AfD.
I would probably have closed this as No Consensus, but the delete close isn't unreasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to overturning to NC, nor to restoring this to draft or userspace, and allowing recreation once it's fleshed out a bit and better sourcing found. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, I searched for Latin Europe on Wikipedia yesterday. Wikipedia gave me a disambiguation page, where the first item was the red link Romance-speaking Europe. Now do you think it is suitable to be like that? Yejianfei (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Roy on pretty much all of that. I do think there is a reasonable case that as it exists it largely duplicates Romance languages. I think I'd still argue NC was the better reading, but delete is within discretion. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This is not a process that starts with an XfD and then people debate if there is an discussion to be had. Nothing is lost with a procedural close and instructions to come back if there is still a dispute with the closer's close that needs community attention. Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn erroneous final decision. People who !voted to delete were searching for the phrase, not the concept. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant endorse per RoySmith. The Delete arguments presented were better than the Keep ones. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring this to draft space so we can consider merging it somewhere else or moving it back to mainspace with a different scope, but I doubt the content has that much value. Most of it is just a giant table of countries where Romance languages are spoken with information which isn't terribly relevant, such as the country's religion and the entire country's population (irrespective of whether these people speak a Romance language or not). Hut 8.5 22:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an anthropologist, so maybe what I'm about to describe is silly and/or obvious. I think it would be really interesting to look at migration of culture, with language being a proxy for culture. As the romance languages evolved and spread out from Rome, was there also scientific knowledge, technology, systems of law and trade, religion, etc that went along with the languages? That's kind of what I was hoping this article would be about. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The close was reasonable and included giving reduced weight to "other stuff exists" rationales. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Caleb Maupin – Moot. Speedy closing this as moot. The AfD was three years ago. There's no need for DRV to get involved, just go ahead and renominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. – -- RoySmith(talk) 20:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist A new discussion at AfD should incur a different result. Article subject is still not mentioned as notable in a single reliable source. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
