Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semitic romanization


 * 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. The nom is not very strong and does not indicate that BEFORE has been followed. As such, I didn't regard it a valid "delete" !vote. Nevertheless, once we're at AfD, a deficient nom is not a good reason to !vote "speedy keep" without providing any otherwise valid arguments. In any case, consensus clearly is to "keep" this article and possibly expand it. Randykitty (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Semitic romanization

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article has been unsourced since 2007. Notabilty needs to be reviewed. Coin945 (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This page is essentially a disambiguation page or a list, and you can clearly see that clicking kn the Romanization of Arabic and Romanization of Hebrew links take you to much larger articles. Since Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages, but have very different alephbets, it makes sense to have separate articles for their romanization, and it makes sense to have this article to link to them Hyperion35 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not a needed disambiguation page and it lacks any sources. This is the type of thing that belongs in a dictionary not an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Verrifiability guidelines state that articles need to have sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as it stands is entirely unsourced and reads like OR. 2007 is too long for something as unverifiable to be hanging around without sourcing. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Leads to major articles such as Romanization of Arabic and Romanization of Hebrew. Batmanthe8th (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It's basically a disambiguation page (or whatever we call dab pages when the title-matching is a little loose). Maybe it needs a rename to something like Romanization of Semitic languages, but I'm not seeing a fundamental problem. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This looks like a disambiguation page where the items listed aren't similar enough to warrant disambiguation from each other. There isn't a broad topic to be covered here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a disambiguation page and therefore does not need sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partofthemachine (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - this is a case of an article simply requiring improvements, not deletion. From what I can see there are sources which cover this topic as a whole, so it makes sense both for the article to exist, and for it to link to more specific articles on Hebrew and Arabic romanization. Academic coverage also covers Maltese and Amharic, so those are good topics for further expansion. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2021 (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.