Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of endangered languages

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 redirect‎ to Lists of endangered languages. Owen× ☎ 23:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of endangered languages[edit]

[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)

Duplicated article. See Lists of endangered languages. It was a redirect since 2009 until the author's recent edits. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"List of endangered languages" was a redirect to "Lists of endangered languages", which is a seperate page. If someone types in "List of endangered languages", they don't want to tab through some 50 articles on every region's endangered languages, and there should be one single comprehensive list of every endangered language. Rotprince (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poor quality article in many ways, unlike the existing Lists of endangered languages. For one all the language links go to Simple English Wikipedia, rather than the Wikipedia we are on. Second, it seems that the assessments of current status next to each language seem to be unsourced and completely subjective assessments fabricated by the author (you, as it were). There is no apparent rhyme or reason to these assessments; for example the author (again, you) claim your own language, the Frisian languages are only in "steady decline" while Catalan is in "very fast decline" (an absurd claim to anyone who knows anything at all about these two languages). It also makes outlandish, unsupported claims, e.g. it lists Sanskrit as an endangered language (in fact, it is extinct), and also makes the debunked claim that Sanskrit is the mother of all Indo-European languages. All in all, it would be an extremely poor article even if there weren't already another article that accomplishes the same function, but better; but given there is, the article should absolutely be deleted post-haste. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think i need to remind you that articles of poor quality can be repaired instead of nominated for deletion. Fix it instead of whining about it. Rotprince (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to fix a broken article that is duplicating a good article. Your point would only stand if the subject of the article were not already covered well elsewhere. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. A perfectly good article already exists on this topic. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:46, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as per above. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The editor working on this appears to be in good faith in attempting a single list of all endagnered languages on one page rather than taking the list of lists approach of the redirect. Unfortunately this has two problems. Firstly it forks the list, and that divides editor effort and allows inconsistencies to arise. As such it is a redundant content fork (WP:REDUNDANTFORK). The other problem is that a single list of all endangered languages would need some 2,500 entries, and that is too long for a single list. Thus the current approach is better and redirect is in order. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, i agree with this user. Can i delete the article manually given i "authored" it? Rotprince (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The person you are replying to is suggesting a redirect, not a delete per se. You can implement this redirect yourself just by changing the content of the page to a redirect- as the nominator Super Dromaeosaurus did previously, but which you reverted, as you might recall.

For future reference, you can refer to these instructions on how to delete pages that you created, but note that such requests are unlikely to be granted if other people have also edited the article. Brusquedandelion (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure if my vote is within the policy but I do find this article to be encyclopaedic enough for keeping. Agletarang (talk) 11:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was never in doubt. The issue is that it is a redundant fork. see WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what's wrong with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2024 (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.