Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin peoples

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latin peoples[edit]

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

Too many disputes regarding who is or isn't "Latin". Article doesn't even stay on topic. Original European ^(talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "stay on topic"... Ha! What topic? We already have Hispanic and Latino Americans, Latin America, Romance languages and Latino (demonym). Except for something about Mussolini being angry at the Nazis, this article contributes what to our collective wisdom? I'd be fine with an article about the history of the people who spoke/speak Latin (though we already have Contemporary Latin in addition to Latin) but that's not what this is. Stalwart111 01:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peoples are not the languages they speak, and what has Hispanic and Latino Americans or Latin America has to do with this broader concept? This is like saying that we cannot have an article about Europeans because English people is already covered and the English can't decide whether they are European or not. Diego (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe might be added to Stalwart's list. I am neutral on the question of deletion. Cnilep (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, speak of the devil and he shall appear. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance-speaking Europe (2nd nomination). Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable source has been presented for years based on which a coherent article could be developed. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep as a broad concept article, given the wealth of references that were provided when it was suggested to merge the page with its subtopic. People from Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Romania, Moldova, Belgium, as well as ancient Foreti, Alba Longa, Tolerus or Velia - all these are not Latin-American, and they aren't Romance languages either, but they are Latin (i.e. Roman) people. Note that there are articles about this topic that the nominator says doesn't exist at least in the Spanish, Aragonese, Belarus, Bulgarian, Romanian, Russian and Slovak Wikipedias. Diego (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And all their sources refer to the Romance languages. OR give birth to OR. That is all. Borsoka (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that is a problem to show that the topic exists and is notable, exactly how? Latin people is people who talk romance languages. Diego (talk) 11:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, no reliable source exists which writes of the topic "Latin peoples". Borsoka (talk) 11:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the sources provided? They do write about latin peoples; among other things, they explain the origin of their languages, the expansion of their ethnic groups through the world, their history, their sexuality... What's not reliable in that? Diego (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source of one people which is considered a Latin people is not a source based on which an article on the Latin peoples can be written: we cannot write an article of the mammals based on a book on the sexual behaviour of dogs. Borsoka (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Romance-speaking peoples? Rob (talk | contribs) 11:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see it moved to Romance-speaking peoples (I prefer Romanic peoples or Romance peoples to match Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, Hellenic, Ugric, etc.) I am in favor of an article that deals with this major subdivision of European peoples, I don't know who in their right mind wouldn't. I am still baffled as to why there isn't an article when there is an article for every other Indo-European ethnolinguistic group. The only reason I proposed deletion is because certain users wish to discriminate against the Romanic peoples (I still have no idea how an admin didn't warn them), and I was tired of constant incivility. Original European ^(talk) 12:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Afro-Eurasian, please decide what you want. Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "Afro-Eurasian". Please see WP:HA, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and WP:BATTLE. You should familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia policies, like I did when I became a Wikipedian less than a month ago. Original European ^(talk) 12:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Afro-Eurasian, would you please decide what do you want: do you want the article to be deleted (as you suggested) or have you changed your mind. Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not Afro-Eurasian. Did you read my comment above? Perhaps you didn't because you are too concerned with your little imaginary world. I stated my opinion above and it is clear what I would like to see, as would most others. Interpret it as you wish. But please, do not add unrelated comments on this page. Original European ^(talk) 12:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to delete it? Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first option would be to have it renamed to a more neutral name that doesn't strictly imply descendants of the Latini tribe, the descendants of Romans, or as you try to imply, Latin Americans. Multiple editors also seek a better option than deletion. Original European ^(talk) 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draga Afro-Eurasian, if my understanding is correct, you suggested that this article should be deleted, because you wanted to rename it. I am afraid, you are a little bit confused. Please clarify what you really want. Borsoka (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what "draga" means, and I am not Afro-Eurasian (see talk page). I am not the confused one. The only reason I even thought of deletion is because trying to communicate with you is like talking to a rock that repeats itself and doesn't understand the concept of basic communication skills, such as listening to what others have to say. Original European ^(talk) 13:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draga, interestingly some hours ago you could speak Romanian [1]. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you suggested that the article should be deleted, because you do not want it to be deleted. Interesting approach. Borsoka (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are other editors that pointed out why it should not be deleted, and since deletion was never my first option (see here), I believe that the article should be renamed and then we can discuss other things regarding the article. Original European ^(talk) 13:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

????? If your favorite option is the renaming of the article, why do you suggest its deletion?????? Do you frequently state the opposite to what you actually want? Borsoka (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've got to go to school and I do not have time to constantly repeat myself (I'm starting to feel crazy). To any other editor that reads this and is against deletion: I apologize for suggesting deletion but as you can see, it was the best option in my head at the time. Like I've said before, deletion was never option number 1. Original European ^(talk) 13:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draga, one who says the opposite he/she actually wants must feel crazy. Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging Latin/Romance-speaking articles seems like the way to go, with pages like this redirecting to appropriate sections. I'm opposed to simply deleting this article. Rob (talk | contribs) 13:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless sources provided. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and redirect to Romance languages, where we could include the phrase: "Peoples speaking Romance languages are called Romance peoples or Latin peoples". There are no less than 24.800 which refer to Latin peoples, the expression is quite often used. A WP:DAB could also be chosen if there are also other meanings except this one. 79.117.180.113 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the 20th-century sources you provided you would have found that they use the expression in the context of the early history of Ancient Rome and her Latins. You may not know but in the Ancient Rome no Romance languages were spoken, because these languages developed after the fall of the Roman Empire. Please try to add proper references and not to waste other editors' time. Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so a WP:DAB page is the solution. Why do you prefer a deletion instead of a WP:DAB page ? [Special:Contributions/79.117.180.113|79.117.180.113]] (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the Talk page, you will find that either a DAB or a redirection is acceptable for me. However, I suggest that we should wait till this discussion initiated by a clearly disturbed Afro-Eurasian/Original European is closed. Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, possibly merge. The suggestion for deletion is apparently based on the observation that "there are disputes". This is insane. We don't delete articles because "there are disputes". --dab (𒁳) 09:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In accordance with WP:DEL-REASON #5, #6, #7. CaesarAugustusDivusIulius (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sourcing is weak. Article seems to be based on a poorly defined concept, with little agreement on what constitutes a "Latin" person. For some it's someone Latin American, for others anyone speaking a Romance language, for others (like myself), I'd assume it referred to the Latins (Italic tribe). Without broad agreement outside Wikipedia as to who this label should be applied to, it's almost impossible to write an article in Wikipedia on the topic. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

User:Lankiveil, I think you are making a confusion. This article is not about Latin persons. It is about Latin peoples, not about Latin people. Please check meaning 1 and meaning 2 from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/people#Noun. Peoples (with the singular form a people) means ethnic groups or nationalities(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peoples). See also tthe en.wp article People: "A people is a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation." 86.127.22.96 (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am capable of reading the article, and have done so, thankyou. My belief that it is a hodgepodge subject that is not clearly defined, nor used widely in the real world remains. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Latins were a people that spoke the Latin language. The Latins were not a Latin people. Similarly, the Latin language is not one of the Latin languages. 86.127.22.96 (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lankiveil, your statement is not a reason for deletion. When a term has several meanings in use by reliable sources, we create separate articles for each meaning and create a disambiguation page to help readers find their intended article. Deleting an article on a valid topic just because there are other topics that share the same name is absurd. Diego (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is poorly sourced and incomprehensive. Krakkos (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Krakkos - what about a WP:DAB page or a redirect? 86.127.26.72 (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should be retained and a proper move request submitted after this discussion is closed. One suggest is to rename the article to "Latin heritage peoples" or even "Hispanic heritage peoples." In any case, the article is useful to describe a particular ethnic heritage and should be kept. Meclee (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep, rather rename or merge during a multi-article concerted clean-up effort. A few points about all this mess:

The name could be easily confused with the original Latins: Latins (Italic tribe), which kind of "owns the namespace".
To bring clarity, I would rename it/split it/move parts of the article to Latin Europeans (which is currently redirected to Romance-speaking Europe, which in turn is more of a list than an article) and to Latin Americans.
We already have a Latins article that already has two subsections called Latins#Latin Europeans and Latins#Latin Americans. Those two sections could be expanded and finally point to full fledged articles called Latin Europeans (non existant) and Latin Americans
We used to have a Latin Europe article but is now some sort of disambiguation page with the same name, through the efforts of not so-well intended Wikipedians who are "heavily guarding" it for what it includes (see WP:OWN). The Latin America is just fine. What is really missing are the counterparts, Latin Europe and Latin Europeans.
The transformation of the original Latin Europe into a non-compliant "disambig" page, which doesn't contain Romance-speaking Europe as one of the options creates a bigger mess driven by some people with political agendas and strong WP:POVs. See Talk:Latin Europe#Rfc: can Romance-speaking Europe be added?
While some people try to do the right things here, i.e. find a sensible solution to a proliferation of confusing names and termns, some (read the ultra-nationalist Hungarians Borksoka and Fakirbakir) are sabotaging all the articles related to Romance-speaking Europeans (you can check the edits on all of them), to the point of removing all them into oblivion. The long-shot political goal is to eradicate the idea of Romance-speaking Europeans, especially in Eastern Europe, i.e Romanians in Transylvania, with any price, under the pretext of "scholarly debate", "original research" and "lack of sources". And these kind of actions are not acceptable and not inline with WP.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Codrinb, please try to read the history of the debate before accusing other editors. (1) It was not me who proposed the deletion. (2) I have never stated that Romania or Transylvania is not part of "Romance-speaking Europe" (3) I have never stated that Romania or Transylvania is not part of "Latin Europe". Would you please specify my edits whichI "sabotaged articles related to Romance-speaking Europeans"? Please try to accept that not all editors are driven by political motives or ultra-nationalism, even if this is obviously a surprise for you. Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible Keep seems to be a WP:BROADCONCEPT article about an ethnolinguistic group. Just because (if) an article doesn't have a single precise definition doesn't mean that it isn't valid; the normal technique is to list the different definitions. There's plenty of other similar articles on other shared histories like Germanic peoples. I'm also a bit suspicious, it's recently been subject to significant deletions, and it's very unclear to me these were warranted. Although there is an article for the term latino, that's more or less a US-only term, it's about the term not the people. Given there does seem to be a broadconcept, and no other article for it (the others are on subsets for particular regions), I cannot vote delete.GliderMaven (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GliderMaven, your above remark suggests that you have access to reliable sources of the topic. Would you please list some of them in order to develop this article. For the time being, we have knowledge only books mentioning certain features of individual peoples which are labelled as Latin (for instance, we know of the situation of AIDS in France and of 19th-century Romanians' claim to be a Latin people). Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be claiming that, for example, the Portuguese people are not considered a latin people; but this is pegging my incredulity meter that you would not find a reliable source stating that this is the case. And they are strangely missing from the article. There is however a category: Category:Romance peoples and it is populated in the way I would expect. Given this, I'm finding that the OED definition is sufficient to keep the article; and you could easily populate the article simply by subarticling all the various latin/romance people's into the article, and people would agree with the article existing having done so. I'm therefore sticking with my claim and belief that this is a perfectly acceptable encyclopedic topic, and the article should and must not be deleted, and I'm maintaining it as a strong keep.GliderMaven (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not claim anything. I only would like to know, based on references to reliable sources, which are the Latin peoples and what are their common features. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an ethno-linguistic group. Their key common characteristic is that they are people, or are descended from people, that speak or spoke a Romance language. That's how ethno-linguistic groups work. I have now upgraded my !vote to strongest possible keep. We have the OED definition, we don't need anything else.GliderMaven (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure your above statement is based on a reliable source. Would you please name it in order to upgrade your vote to "the extremely unchallengable strongest possible keep of the entire universe" category. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, trivially the OED, also all the other dictionaries define 'latin' equivalently. The call for deletion is utterly without merit.GliderMaven (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 07:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a familiar concept in English usage, although obviously with disputed meaning. (Does it refer to inhabitants of Latin America? Native speakers of Romance languages? Or the less familiar Medieval Greek usage of referring to West Europeans?) As Dab pointed out above, the fact that "thee are disputes" is not sufficient grounds for deletion. (Maybe someone ought to work on including the various ways this terminology has been used, & the history of its differing uses. That would be more productive than waging a campaign for deletion.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It does seem like an appropriate broad-concept article, although merging this with "Romance languages" wouldn't be terrible either. Orser67 (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2014 (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.