Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macedonian phonology

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 article may be redirected at editorial discretion. As Uanfala notes, Macedonian language#Phonology does contain content copied from this article, so in accordance with WP:CWW, its attribution needs to be preserved in some form. Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian phonology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The contents of this page, including bibliography are also present on the page Macedonian language and a separate article for its phonology is not required. Dyolf87 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete. The content of the article was merged [1] (by the nom) into Macedonian language so at the very least this should be kept (as a redirect) to preserve attribution. The topic clearly warrants an article of its own (see Category:Language phonologies), so the real question now is whether the present content is enough for such a separate article, or whether this should for the time being be treated within the main article. Either is fine, but I'd be inclined to leave it as is – a separate article encourages expansion, and the main article is getting too big anyway. – Uanfala 10:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This skates dangerously close to a bad faith nomination, as the nominator themselves merged the material into the "parent" article, immediately before filing for deletion, and then proceeded to use the fact that the "parent" article contains the same content as a rationale for deletion. If not for Uanfala's detective work I would have likely overlooked this. The other half of the nominator's rationale is that language phonology articles are not "required". While they may not be "required" per se (I'm not aware of any policy or guideline saying "you MUST create articles on language phonologies", they are certainly notable and worthy of inclusion when they do exist. CJK09 (talk) 04:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 08:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keepI agree with the point made by CJK09. Basicly i cant see any policy that says article should be deleted because they 'aren't required', and since this passes WP:N easily, it is an obvious keep, regardless of content being placed in main article. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:56, 30 August 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.