Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forlivese dialect


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Romagnol. czar 05:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Forlivese dialect

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Context: Forlì (population 117,000) is a city in the Italian historical region of Romagna, which comprises the southeastern half of the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna and extends to San Marino and Montefeltro. Romagnol is an endangered dialect, spoken commonly among older generations, with maybe 430,000 speakers.

Summary: We could create possibly dozens of articles about the dialectal idiosyncracies across Romagna's municipalities, which are well-documented across several sources, or we could summarise the differences in the article at Romagnol.

Explanation: Now, don't get me wrong: sources do exist on the Forlivese dialect (e.g. 1). This isn't a WP:GNG issue, though coverage is often or exclusively local. But sources also exist on every other variant in Romagna, and there are a lot to choose from. The crucial point is that Romagnol exhibits a dialectal continuum, "an infinity of Romagnol dialects decreasing from place to place, as continuous variations on a common basis" (2, 3, 4, 5, 6). A quick search reveals sources available on many dialectal varieties, down to the municipal level, e.g. Serravalle (pop. 11,000) [3] or Riccione (pop. 34,500) [7]. I appreciate that Forlì is larger than these cities, but then we also have Ravenna (pop. 159,000) [8], or the example I am most familiar with, Rimini (pop. 148,000) [9], a city that has a different name in Romagnol depending which side of the city you're in. As a point of reference, the Italian-language Wikipedia only affords a standalone article to the dialects of San Marino (noting the differences especially evident in Serravalle's dialect) and Senigallia. The current Forlivese dialect article doesn't actually detail how it differs from other variants of Romagnol, something which also isn't well-discussed in the Romagnol article.

Editor Metaphysicus, who removed my PROD tag on the nominated article, says that the Forlivese dialect is discussed by Dante Aligheri as the purest variant of Romagnol, a fact which that the editor kindly added to the article today (the article was previously unreferenced). That this makes the Forlivese dialect "its own and main version" of Romagnol sounds like editorial synthesis. And Dante's mention is currently pretty much the only distinctive detail the article offers about the Forlivese dialect that cannot be said about varieties of Romagnol in general. And sure, that's a mention with encyclopaedic value, but Santarcangelo (pop. 21,000) [10] has notable Romagnol poets (Tonino Guerra, Raffaello Baldini); Giovanni Antonio Battarra wrote poems in the dialect of Coriano (pop. 10,400); did the same for the dialect of Savignano (pop. 18,000) [11]. We can clutch at the available sources (mixing local sources with scholarly inter-dialectal linguistic analyses) to write articles on each local, idiosyncratic variant of Romagnol. Or, rather than writing possibly dozens of articles that are virtually the same with just a paragraph dedicated to the differences, we can detail these differences in a subheading at Romagnol, also highlighting which variants of Romagnol have received the most treatment in published sources. Only then, if individual variants clearly have too much written about them to fit inside the article, might it be worth spinning off articles on local variants. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy, Language,  and Literature. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More discussion around the proposed WP:ATD would be helpful in attaining a consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 22:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge with Romagnol. If it was a quality page, sourced with scholarly articles on the dialect, with a description of the peculiarities of this variant of Romagnol, it would deserve its own page. Here most of the content is unsourced and adds very little to what is already presented in the Romagnol page. Broc (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge with Romagnol per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment from nominator merging is fine per above IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * well, redirecting, seeing as there's only one sentence referenced to merge... IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge (nominator !vote change) per others IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 12:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge with Romagnol per prior arguments. Brusquedandelion (talk) 09:40, 24 February 2024 (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.