Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romance peoples
or '''redirect''' to Romance languages per  and . If Romance peoples are just defined as peoples speaking Romance languages, and this is the only thing we can say about them, then the primary topic is Romance languages. "Romance peoples = peoples speaking Romance languages" is just a dictionary entry, but not a topic. Some sources (such as Magocsi 2018){{cite book |last1=Magocsi |first1=Paul Robert |author-link1=Paul Robert Magocsi |year=2018 |chapter= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=Historical Atlas of Central Europe: Third Revised and Expanded Edition |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=p-d_DwAAQBAJ |series= |language= |volume= |issue= |edition= |location= |publisher=University of Toronto Press |page= |pages= |isbn=1487523319 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via=  |quote= }} only use the term as a kind of "folder label" without any deeper implications, and many (especially contemporary) sources which deal with the nations and ethnicites of Europe do not employ the concept of "Romance peoples" at all, e.g. Cole (2011){{cite book |last1=Cole |first1=Jeffrey |author-link1=Jeffrey Cole |year=2011 |chapter= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=Ethnic Groups of Europe: An Encyclopedia |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Wlth0GRi0N0C |series= |language= |volume= |issue= |edition= |location= |publisher=ABC-CLIO |page= |pages= |isbn=1598843028 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via=  |quote= }} (where only one author out of 88 makes a single mention of "Latin peoples" i.e. "Romance peoples" in sense on the current article) and Waldman & Mason (2006),{{cite book |last1=Waldman |first1=Carl |author-link1= |last2=Mason |first2=Catherine |author-link2= |year=2006 |chapter= |editor-last= |editor-first= |editor-link= |title=Encyclopedia of European Peoples |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kfv6HKXErqAC |series= |language= |volume= |issue= |edition= |location= |publisher=Infobase Publishing |page= |pages= |isbn=1438129181 |archive-url= |archive-date= |access-date= |via=  |quote= }} and also good ol' Auntie ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' does not bother about a topic called "Romance peoples". Per  we should not elevate a non-topic to a topic, just because some sources do so. The meaningful topic "Romance peoples" that would not only rest on shared linguistic history, but also on shared culture etc. is covered in Romans. With the transition of the Romans into the individual Romance-speaking ethnicities and nations (and also being absorbed into non-Romance speaking groups), the history of "Romance peoples" ends. And btw, readers are not really ''that'' interested in the topic https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2019-11-01&end=2020-02-01&pages=Romance_peoples, except for the "storm in the WP-teacup" views starting in mid December
— NONE, NONE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTABLE||WP:NPOV||WP:NPOV (Wikipedia:Notability)