 | This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2014 December 6. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
European Voynich Alphabet
AfDs for this article:
- European Voynich Alphabet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There isn't coverage of this sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and I don't think that it's notable enough to even consider merging. There are plenty of other attempts at creating an alphabet for the Voynich manuscript, and there's no reason to include this one above all others. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per lack of independent coverage. If references to such coverage are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - this is an article advocating one theory about how to construct an alphabet -- for what amounts to a parlor game. Thus it constitutes a disallowed content fork. As the nom asserts, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage, much less any reliable secondary sources, as Stuartyeates has noted. Bearian ( talk) 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, no indication this is used by anyone other than its inventors. Aɴɢʀ ( talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
| This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2014 December 6. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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 -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
European Voynich Alphabet
AfDs for this article:
- European Voynich Alphabet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There isn't coverage of this sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and I don't think that it's notable enough to even consider merging. There are plenty of other attempts at creating an alphabet for the Voynich manuscript, and there's no reason to include this one above all others. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 02:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as per lack of independent coverage. If references to such coverage are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates ( talk) 07:30, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - this is an article advocating one theory about how to construct an alphabet -- for what amounts to a parlor game. Thus it constitutes a disallowed content fork. As the nom asserts, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage, much less any reliable secondary sources, as Stuartyeates has noted. Bearian ( talk) 18:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, no indication this is used by anyone other than its inventors. Aɴɢʀ ( talk) 20:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.