Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bulgarian nouns


 * 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. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 02:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Bulgarian nouns
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There's not even a Wikipedia article on "English nouns" - it redirects to a tiny paragraph in a larger-scoped article. This seems a bit excessive, no? It also hasn't been sourced since 2006. Surely it deserves better? Improve or redirect. Coin945 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 4.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 06:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Speedy keep. No valid deletion rationale given. The topic is obviously notable and the article's content doesn't raise any red flags: I don't see any of the OR that is rife in the main article. English nouns are notable too, and the reason they don't have a standalone article probably has to do with the overall thinness of English nominal morphology. – Uanfala (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep for invalid deletion reason. Also the claim it is unsourced is totally not true. It has print reference. Comparison with English noun is also invalid reason, Bulgarian nouns have wider scope due to the nature of the language. also readily sources for expansion
 * Lexical access in Bulgarian: Nouns and Adjectives with and without floating vowel: –Peer reviewed Catalan Journal of Linguistics
 * Anomalous use of definiteness and gender in some types of noun –Croatian Journal
 * Clustering Clitics in Bulgarian Nominal Constituents.
 * Comparative study of French and Bulgarian human general nouns –Ammarpad (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy Keep per Uanfala Felicia (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "dictionary article " if you indeed do read the article. It covers many aspects in well labeled multiple sections also in academic prose. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A reasonable article explaining the construction of nouns in this language. bd2412  T 18:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Several similar articles exists, no reason why this particular one should go. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as an entirely encyclopedic article with sourcing (more could potentially be added, but the claim that it's unsourced is rubbish). Nominator should pay closer attention prior to nominations like this, and JPL should remember to read the article before expressing an opinion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Informative article. I don't see a reason why it should be deleted. Quickfingers (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no rigid rules for how to cover grammar on Wikipedia, but grammar is definitely an encyclopedic topic. While there's nothing on English nouns (which have neither gender nor declension), other languages are covered in articles like Spanish nouns, German nouns, Sanskrit nouns, Russian declension, Latin declension, etc. Arguably there might be a better way to organise this material, but that's certainly not reason to delete it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.