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. Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman language[edit]

Roman language (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)

Every entry on this page is essentially a misnomer, there is no "Roman language". - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: they are all (or most) terms which someone might think to be called "Roman language" and are likely to be helpful to some readers. WP:IAR if need be. PamD 09:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems a perfectly reasonable search term in any event. Prince of Thieves (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, an obvious search term for which disambiguation is needed. Our article on the Roman language (which is called either Romanesco or Romanaccio) is at Romanesco dialect, not an obvious title if you happen not to know, or to have forgotten, that name. Clearly it needs to be distinguished from the Ancient Roman language. The other items are all plausible too. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely enough entries that could plausibly referred to as a "Roman language" (Latin, Roman empire languages, Roman Italian dialect, Romance languages). The others, even if not referred to as a "Roman language" are certainly close enough that their inclusion would be helpful for readers, even if that has to be under a "See also" section. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:54, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly a useful disambig page. I would maybe reconsider the "You might be looking for:" header at the top of the page, as that doesn't seem very standard to me. There should be a better way of wording that. Rockypedia (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There may not be a Roman language; but that is why this page is useful. Its is certainly a plausible search term.TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure how you would reference a page like this but as a subject, it deserves a Wikipedia page Geymarfan (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not that this discussion needs more help, but I can easily think of times I would have found this page very useful. – Athaenara ✉ 11:08, 6 March 2018 (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.