Proto-Altaic language: Only has a couple of adherents who are publishing a proto-language reconstruction of a language family that itself isn't believed to have enough demonstrate to evidence.  Clearly WP:PROFRINGE , lost of weasel-y language and the topic itself fails WP:GNG .  Most of the citations are actually about Altaic (itself fairly widely rejected, but which clearly meets notability guidelines), not Proto-Altaic.  Warrenmck ( talk ) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions .  Warrenmck ( talk ) 20:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] NOTE: This is in response to a similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proto-Dené–Caucasian language ; I've also started an RfD for Proto-Nostratic , but I'll leave Proto-Eurasiatic alone since it's a mere redirect and the Eurasiatic hypothesis seems new enough to not be so thoroughly discredited as Nostratic.  Also left alone, or merge-worthy, is Proto-Human language , which is a noteworthy theory in its own right.  – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs ) 21:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If you look at the linguistics wikiproject, I’ve proposed rolling some of the more… spicy takes on macrofamily proposals into one article.  It’s definitely a controversial idea, but just a thought if you want to take a look over there.  Warrenmck ( talk ) 03:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs ) 21:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to Altaic languages .  I strongly agree that having an article about Proto-Altaic language or merging its content into Altaic languages is in-universe WP:PROFRINGE .  The term "Proto-Altaic", however, is a legitimate search topic.  – Austronesier ( talk ) 21:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: I worry that the redirect would encourage people to expand pro-fringe content into the main article.  “Well it redirects there and says nothing about it!” considering there’s no evidence the macrofamilies in question exist, is it really worth having a fringier subset of fringe redirect?  Warrenmck ( talk ) 00:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep or merge/redirect – reasonable search term, so it shouldn't be deleted.  I have no opinion on whether the topic is notable.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 23:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep but edit Wikipedia should NOT be limited to "mainstream" views only, or even try to define what the "mainstream" view is.   The WP:FRINGE guideline says only that a Wikipedia article on a fringe theory should not make it appear more accepted than it really is.  The topic is notable enough, and readers who see the term somewhere and look it up deserve to know all there is to know about it.   At most, the article should be edited to say how little support the theory has among academic linguists.  -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk ) 08:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] PS @ John M Wolfson : @ Warrenmck : By the way, most of those "Proto-XXX" theories, including Greenberg's, are not "fringe" in the same sense that Flat Earth and Creationism are "fringe".   They do NOT contradict any solid linguistic theory.   It is just that the evidence and/or arguments that they rely upon are not considered reliable enough by "mainstream" linguists.   Thus they are more like the theory that Dark Matter consist of exotic particles, or that there was contact between Polynesia and South America, etc.  "Highly speculative" and "unconvincing" maybe, but not "unscientific" or "contrary to mainstream".  -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk ) 09:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just a comment for those who aren't aware, this is the author of the article in question (thanks for coming!) It is fringe, these proto-language articles are predicated on accepting hypotheticals which not only lack any meaningful evidence but which directly counter our best understanding of linguistic families.  Beyond that, the technique used to derive these proto-families is basically exclusively mass comparison , which is a fringe technique by all accounts.  "Unscientific" and "contrary to mainstream" are exactly the correct descriptors considering the use of a rejected fringe technique and creative liberties with the current understanding of top-level phylum in linguistics.  Warrenmck ( talk ) 19:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:52, 23 September 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect