Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navlipi

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. J04n(talk page) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Navlipi

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

Article on a non-notable, essentially self-published phonetic script which has generated no independent outside coverage. The script itself hasn't bee published in any scholarly venues and the sources on the page are just reviews of the book associated with the script, not independent coverage/discussion of the script itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Based only on the information currently in the article, it doesn't seem to satisfy
WP:NMEDIA or GNG. Maybe one could argue for Books criterion 1, subject of multiple reviews, but two positive reviews doesn't strike me as sufficient. I can't think of what other criteria might apply to a new script. Cnilep (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah... if it did meet NBOOK then the article would have to be rewritten to be about the book rather than about the script. Personally I don't think it does, the reviews there are seem pretty non-significant (and I don't really agree with the NBOOKS criteria anyway, at least as applied to academic monographs, most of which get reviewed pretty much by default in one or two relevant journals but which probably would not be considered notable by any other criterion... but anyway that issue is a bit outside the scope of a single AFD I guess). rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I have found nothing better and there's nothing to suggest the needed outside coverage for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 06:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be proven; if it is, it'll probably be in other language sources. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:52, 12 June 2016 (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.