Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desphilic

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. /ƒETCH COMMS / 01:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desphilic[edit]

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

Contested Prod. original research, no mention outside the associated website, Wikipedia and mirrors Nuttah (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ths article, It is the most logical and easy to use among all persian romanization schemes. (manoochehr) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.99.89.236 (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article, Here are some rankings in google for wwww.desphilic.com
Topic: Persian Tenses: Rank=9 in Google ---- Topic: Persian Romanization: Rank=9 in Google
Topic: Persian English Alphabet: Rank=9 in Google ----- Topic: Persian conjugation pronouns: Rank=4 in Google
Topic: Persian Roman Alphabet: Rank=11 in Google ------Topic: Persian Extended keyboard: Rank=9 in Google
Topic: fargelisi: Rank=3 in Google --------- Topic: Penglish standard: Rank=2 in Google
Persian Unipers-Keyboard , Rank=4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by I masoomi (talk • contribs) 07:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — I masoomi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This article please, I found many references to this article in google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.6.58.203 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC) — 212.6.58.203 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - There is absolutely no indication that this proposal has been accepted as a standard for Romanisation of Persian. In particular, it is very telling that Google Books finds absolutely no results. Contrast this with pinyin. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I had to remove a large chunk of content from the article as it was copied from teh website. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Whpq Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~

1- Dear Mr/Mrs. Whpq, I have the permission to add that contents to Wikipedia, and They are not copyrighted material without permission.I can provide Wikipedia with all kinds of evidence from www.desphilic.com. Please do not edit pages without concern at least such a major destruction! or you will be blocked from editing.

2- Desphilic is almost the only Persian Romanization site which is still alive. It definitely deserves a separate page in Wikipedia.

3- If this census has a primary leader or judge or jurry, plz that leader be responsible to look for consultancy about the topic from an expert. The contents should not be judged without comments from an expert.

4- The contents, if compared to Chinese Romanization should be considered with the following issues taken in mind:

41- Chinese have more than 3000 alphabet letters, while Perso-Arabic has only 32 which amongst them 10 are repetitions.

42- Chinese have 1/4 of the world population, Perso-Arabic Persian users are only 70 Million.

43- Desphilic is a new and under-development standard. however currently there are 1000 results in Google.

It is obvious that you must find more results for pinyin. and of course its wiki page is larger.

5- The issues that criticizers have talked about all are about quantitative matters. none of them have had a qualitative and content based analysis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I masoomi (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - [1] Copyrighted material cannot be added to Wikipedia without confirmation of permission. If you do have permission, then you need to follow the instructions for donating copyrighted material.
- [2] - Being nearly the only Persian Romanization website around is not a reason for keeping this article unless it can be shown that this fact makes the site notable through coverage in reliable sources.
- [3] - This discussion does not have a specific leader. It is a community discussion, although an uninvolved administrator will make a decision at the end based on this discussion. As for judgment from an expert, if anybody can out forth evidence from experts that Desphilic is a notable Persian romanisation, then that would be a strong argument for keeping the article.
- [4] - Pointing to the Chinese language was not to compare the details of the language, but rather show that coverage about Chinese Romanisation exists in reliable sources. A search in Google Books for pinyin or Wade-Giles shows plenty of sources that write about these systems of Romansiation.. whereas there is absolutely no results for Desphilic. -- Whpq (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:45, 24 November 2010 (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.