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. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moeso-Romanian language[edit]

del. Original research by an editor who came and go and doesn't answer the questions in article and user talk pages. I noticed some Romanian wikipedians don't mind it deleted, others just ignore the issue. While the topic is plausible, these people do exist, but as the article says, "They have been neglected by researchers in linguistics and anthropology because of their identity mimicry" or whatever, but wikipedia is not a vehicle for their revival. `'mikka 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the name is a neologism, not found anywhere outside wikipedia. The names used are "română / rumâneşte" in their language or "Vlach" in Serbian. bogdan
Delete -- the fact that the historical region Moesia covers more or less the area where they are found, does not imply that one can change the name of the language according to it. These people are called Timok Vlachs in English, Vlachs in Serbo-Croatian, and themselves call Rumâni. They speak Romanian (a dialect, and for obvious reasons somewhat poorer in vocabulary). I coppied the content of the page into an item of Talk:Timok Vlachs, so that if there are 2-3 useful sentences, one can use that info in the appropriate page. It is a waste of AfD space and time to name an article for deletion when it is obvious an ad hoc invented title. The appropriate space for this discussion would have been Talk:Moeso-Romanian language, and the result would have been the same in 1 day. Dc76 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- A portion of the discussion here has been erased. See Uncesored version of the initial portion of the discussion for deletion of Moeso-Romanian language. I have received a wise recommendation "But I would suggest that you back off a step and think about whether this is worth arguing over." (see full text if interested), therefore I am not going to argue any longer. My final word is at the very end of this.:Dc76 13:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof was given that the concept exists; all Google hits lead to Wikipedia. We need to wait until linguists will write about this subject in an independent publication. — AdiJapan ☎ 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bogdan. Given that there is no google hit outside of wikipedia, this article even qualifies for speedy: it is a hoax. Dahn 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ego2007 16:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in fact, I already questioned the facts in this article before. My entry can be seen here. Not sure if it is a hoax like User:Dahn says, but delete anyway. Ştefan44 02:12, 19 February 2007 (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.