Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanian numbers

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian numbers[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Wikipedia is not a language translator. Someone who wants to know the name of a number in Romanian can do so by looking up the English word for the number in Wiktionary and then going to the Translations template and finding the Romanian word. Georgia guy (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this isn’t a quick “how to say ‘eight’ in Romanian” guide but a valid encyclopedic exposition of the unusual grammatical characteristics of numbers in Romanian and some of their variations. Mccapra (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — valid topic, in line with many others of this type. Has been covered as such by reliable sources. — Biruitorul ^Talk 21:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is far too much-unsupported material that one cannot possibly tell what is original research or not. Three inline citations citations and seven "general references" do provide adequate sourcing let alone advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - goes well beyond dictionary definitions. I agree it could be better sourced and I will tag it for that. Elinruby (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The stated rationale for deletion does not apply to this article. If anything, the article explains why translation is more complicated than just going to Wiktionary and reading off a list. Yes, it is presently undersourced, but this is the kind of topic that linguists can noodle about indefinitely. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it could use better sourcing, especially inline sources, it passes GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:57, 1 February 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.