Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance-speaking Europe (3rd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 January 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources used in the article make any reference to a "Romance-speaking Europe" existing. Google search for "Romance-speaking Europe" returns almost entirely Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, plus a few offhand mentions that do not treat it as a separate topic. It seems to be basically a Wikipedia construct, and it just duplicates content already found at the main Romance languages article. We wouldn't have an article titled "Chinese-speaking Asia". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an awkward and uncommon term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially when other articles regarding Germanic, Slavic, and Celtic speaking Europe are not deleted Luna935 (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can they be deleted when they don't exist? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST seems to apply here. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - OSE is not policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep, the phrase seems to appeared in quite a few book results--Prisencolin (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid rationale to keep. Just because "Romance-speaking Europe" appears in search results, it does not mean we should have an article with that title. I could search and find many examples of e.g. a "yellow jumper" but that does not mean we should have an article with that title. You can use a google search to find references, it’s often the best way to do so, but raw search results are meaningless.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @JohnBlackburne:, the fact that this term appears in scholarly works suggests that its suitable for inclusion in WP. Also, the table is useful for comparisons between Romance-speaking countries. The Romance languages article is pretty large so it wouldn't fit there.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist^un Eins ^uno 23:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Not a good topic for an article, as can be seen by the article which has almost no content, just a lead and list that enumerates the countries and a brief history of how the Romance languages ended up where they did. But this is all content found in Romance languages, in far more depth and properly in context. There is no need for this to exist as a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlackburne (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prisencolin. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the content already exists more appropriatly in Romance languages, so this is needless duplication. Reviewing the previous AfDs none was closed because of asserting independent notability of this subject but only appealing to emotion and Keep, I like it. In addition this is largely baze on synthesis and original research of goverment's reports and statistics (90% of the sources used) and this is violation of Wikipedia core policy WP:NOR. No independent sources that show this term (and the concept it means) is discussed in reliable sources or scholarly works. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more book results for "Latin Europe", this is the only page on the Latin Europe DAB page about a geographic region.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This book is not even talking about the subject of deletion. And Just google searching name and seeing it everywhere is not an indication of notability, it has to do with how much content of the book actually talk about the subject directly. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.