Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language police


 * 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 Speedy keep as disambiguation page. Nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. --Itub 12:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Language police

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Intrinsically POV-pushing article, which started as a "humorous" disambiguation page. No assertion of notability for the phrase. With a couple of cherry-picked references to sources that happen to mention the term, it is little more than a dictionary definition. Some language academies are listed with no apparent reason. Note: see the talk page for more background. --Itub 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - It needs to be cleaned up and trimmed to conform to the normal Disambig page style, but deletion seems rather extreme. --DAJF 10:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - As above. digitalemotion  11:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep I have cleaned-up and formatted this page into a disambiguation page, which is not an article (and AfDs are for articles). I'll let someone else close this nom. – sgeureka t•c 12:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It was not clear to me whether this was an article or a disambiguation page. It started as a disambiguation page, but started to evolve into something else altogether. A problem remains: who calls these language academies the "language police"? Is the usage notable enough for a disambiguation page? If we remove these questionable (and slightly offensive) nicknames from the list, all that remains is a book called The Language Police. Should we just redirect to the book then? --Itub 12:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I left in an invisible comment sourcing the French "language police". I have also created a new wiktionary page for language police, which will likely stay as dictionary.com has an entry for that phrase. So there are three sourced entries now. Furthermore, I also consider "language police" a likely search time for the other entries plus the see also section. This is good enough for me as a regular dab editor to keep the dab page. – sgeureka t•c 12:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Thank you for fixing it. It seems to have been a disambiguation page that someone had added footnotes to; looks fine now, an excellent start for looking for those articles about government agencies that enforce linguistic purity Mandsford 12:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn. OK, I withdraw this nomination. I'll delete the Real Academia Española from the list. If someone adds a sourced claim that it is known as a "language police" to the Real Academia Española article, feel free to add it back.


 * 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.