Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Differences in meaning and usage between "Spanish" and "Castilian"

POV issues, duplicates info in the Names given to the Spanish language article. The only differences between the 2 articles I've listed are the quotes around Spanish and Castilian --VikÞor 04:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reads more like vanity, to me. Redirect, either to Names given to the Spanish language or Spanish language. RickK 05:08, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Redirect, the VfD was listed incorrectly Aug 23, and never entered into the list. -Vina 00:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this VfD'd earlier? Vina, I don't think it was never entered.  I think it was listed, received two or three votes, at most, and then was just gone.  I don't know what happened to it, but someone appears to have either let it roll off VfD without action being taken or to have removed it manually.  At that point, I didn't feel very strongly about the article and didn't vote (and people didn't vote in general).  This time, I vote redirect without merge to Spanish language . N.b. I'm voted for a redirect only to prevent or forestall the article's recreation, not because I think it's useful.  I would also be content with a straight delete.  Geogre 00:25, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've been going through pages that link to vfd, but do not exist either on the main page or in the archive of the appropriate day. Aren't admins supposed to resolve (and remove) the tags before removing the discussion from the archives? -Vina 01:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, Vina, but I think the items that don't get resolution just kind of roll off. I believe they're supposed to be moved back onto the main VfD page with a note that no consensus was reached.  I'm not saying that someone missed this one.  It's just a theory. Geogre 02:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Names given to the Spanish language is superior. Apparently, after a debate on the talk page of the same, User:Chameleon or User:200.45.96.86 created this oddly named article.  I'm not sure why the anon ended up using it as a soapbox, but since nothing else links there, I don't find the redirect necessary either.  Delete, simple delete.  --Ardonik.talk 01:42, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Names given to the Spanish language. Comments: (1) A POV problem is not a valid reason to list an article for deletion. This article could've been redirected without having to have this discussion. (2) Redirect, not delete. Redirects are cheap. &bull; Benc &bull; 09:10, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The current article, besides defying all sorts of punctuation, spelling and capitalization conventions, complete with a double author identification, is POV and completely ignores modern language classification naming conventions used by the vast majority of modern linguists. Most modern works call the entire language Spanish (even though it is spoken outside Spain...just like we speak French, English and Portuguese in the Americas, too, despite their being named after European nations) and typically reserve the term Castillian to refer to the variety of Spanish spoken in Iberia. It also says "YOU MUST REMEMBER THAT CASTILIAN IS NOT A DIALECT!! IT IS A LANGUAGE, SUCH AS PORTUGUESE OR ARABIC.", ignoring that many (probably most) non-Arabic-speaking linguists classify Arabic as a group of closely related languages of which many types are mutually unintelligible. If only it were that easy to distinguish between a language and a dialect anyhow! (See Chinese language, Arabic language, Scandinavian languages, Serbo-Croatian language, etc.) I could go on, but my comment is long enough; this article is simply irreparable in my opinion and should be redirected deleted as mentioned above. Livajo 15:42, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Note: I have changed my vote after deciding that such an obscure title would not likely ever appear as a link on Wikipedia after its content is removed and is an unlikely thing for someone to enter into a search box. Livajo 03:19, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, I like it! -- Crevaner 21:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV rant.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 01:54, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not redirect. Title is itself biased, and is too long-winded to be an actual title. Content is done better elsewhere (to say the least), poorly organized, and with little merit. Improv 18:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like a letter from some whacko to the rest of the world. Even if it was worth keeping, it would require and extreme amount of cleanup and probably would not even resemble the same article anymore.  Also, what would be the point of redirecting it?  No one in their right minds would ever type out the whole name of this in a link unless they were a gigantic fan of this article.    &mdash; Braaropolis | Talk 21:05, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)