Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urheimat

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 keep. WP:SNOW keep, no comment on whether SKCRIT#1 or 3 applies. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urheimat[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)

The article itself has an original research template on it; it is even unknown if "Urheimat" is even a real term. Firestar464 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Firestar464 (talk) 11:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Is this a serious nomination?? It is definitely a real term and one of the core concepts of historical linguistics. Yes, the article is rightly tagged for containing original research, but there are over 140 citations in the article and links to versions in 22 other languages attesting to the fact that this topic is both verifiable and widely used. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DINC. "It is even unknown if "Urheimat" is even a real term" is a subjective statement. Verification can be achieved with a simple Google Scholar search[1]. The term and the concept are fundamental to historical linguistics; whatever is lacking in the article can be easily fixed with the help of standard textbooks in the field. –Austronesier (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the nomination appears to be based on some sort of a mix-up, however I do understand how the nominator had difficulties with verification, for me Google returns garbage results for the term unless accompanied by other relevant phrases. "Homeland" appears to have become a more common term for this. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How did an article about a major concept in historical linguistics even end up at AfD? – Uanfala (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very well-referenced article; I'm not sure what inspired the nomination. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- well-attested term in the field. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2020 (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.