Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawunuia language


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Lawunuia language

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

Fails verification that a language of this name exists. (I do not consider the existence of an ISO 639-3 sufficient verification.) If verified, it could redirect to Northwest Solomonic languages. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Oceania. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, it exists, its alternative name being used in the title of a 1976 paper, for example: Banoni, Piva and Papuanization. And it's mentioned in some other sources, like and . So, I'm not sure if there's enough coverage out there to justify a separate article, but I oppose deletion, and support at the very least a redirect. toweli (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * keep We list 2 sources beside ISO. We'd only merge if it's arguably not a distinct language. Otherwise, the consensus is that languages get articles. If a language doesn't have an article, we create one, so this would just be recreated. If we discover it doesn't actually exist, we petition ISO to retire the language code, but SIL even updated the speaker population recently. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Bad Afd based on wrong premises. "Fails verification" means that the source Ethnologue has a complete entry (with info about location, speakers etc.) about a non-exisiting language? That's a bold claim. Leaves us with WP:N, but real languages are notable. For those in doubt in this case, see User:Toweli's list of sources above. –Austronesier (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep, as there is sufficient verification to warrant an article. 🪐Kepler-1229b &#124; talk &#124; contribs🪐 02:06, 25 June 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.