Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kokborok script

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 redirect to Kokborok#Kokborok script (Koloma). Consensus not to keep, and the redirect idea seems sensible and is not opposed. Sandstein 17:00, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kokborok script[edit]

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

While the script issues around Kokborok are documented in the main article as well as the article Script issues of Kokborok and touched on in Kokborok literature, this new article seems like a fork of the other articles. The intro section is effectively a duplication of what can be found in the other articles about history of the script. However the main concern in the section "Many Developed scripts for Kokborok" which is entirely unsourced and there is no indication whatsoever how notable those script variants are and to which degree there actually is a discussion about those scripts. Given the very political nature of the discussion, this strikes me as a WP:POVFORK with strong elements of WP:OR or even promotion by creating relevance for some proposals (specifically script variant 9). I appreciate this is a very fringe topic and the depth of the discussion may not be covered by sources widely accessible. Nevertheless (or especially because of this), we need to be extra careful about what is elevated to encyclopaedia contents. Therefore I recommend to delete this article and redirect the title to Script issues of Kokborok. It may also be worthwhile to add this complex of topics in the watchlist for Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from author's talk page:

Dear, sir I feel that deleting an article is bad discission, I am not pointing you wrong but as I told you before Kokborok is still under process, and many people are contributing in it. And Kokborok Script is like a platform where many can get engage, showcasing their ideas in developing Kokborok script and people who read this article also will know how far has this gone. And I am sure one day all the Tripuri community will come to a conclusion through this article. So I request you not to delete this article from Wikipedia, and please remove it from the nomination of deletion. Abelborok 11:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Abel Tiprasa: I appreciate your effort in creating the article. The lack of a script is well documented in some of the other articles about the Kokborok language and in external sources. However, Wikipedia is not a platform to debate and discuss a script, it is not a blog or social platform for the development of the Kokborok script. It is an encyclopaedia. As such, articles should reflect available information and not create information. If you seek to engage with other Kokborok speakers you should seek alternative platforms. Of course, when there is some kind of official agreement or there is sourced contents that can be added because it has been published elsewhere, a dedicated article may be warranted. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, userfy/draft also possibly. Oppose redirect. It seems that there are script systems for Kokborok that may pass GNG. However, present article has WP:ESSAY and WP:V issues - relying on other Wikipedia articles (not a valid source) and on a blogspot source (and it is not clear to me that the material is in whole there). Should this be recreated (or main-spaced) - it should be based on academic sources (at least in part - I will note that the images with sample scripts are informative).Icewhiz (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: this has actually been moved to draft before as here. The original inception of that article was an identical copy of that Blogspot article. The author then recreated a second article in main space, with some improved language. The question about the images is to which degree they may possibly be copyvios. If they are photos from books that have a reserved right, they are a violation. We just don't know for sure. Without reliable sources we also don't know if those hand written slides are "real" or made up contents. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 09:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the present article and sourcing are a no-go. Per my BEFORE - I do see some coverage of RS of various Kokborok scripts - and Script issues of Kokborok does not seem to cover the alternative scripts but rather the political debate. I can see the merit of an article on this topic(s) (particular script(s) of Kokborok) - however they would have to be sourced properly. I disagree the present article is a fork (as it actually describes scripts - which is not done in the other two). The WP:V issue is glaring.Icewhiz (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One more case of an article whose main weaknesses are its text and its creators. The article needs a serious improvement (especially in removing unsupported, personal work); and the author offers the weakest of defenses. Yet, the subject is clearly and evidently notable, a living language spoken by hundreds of thousands of people - and verifiable notability is how we decide comings and goings in the palace of culture:

- "Kokborok a raw nerve in Tripura's identity politics," Times of India, 7 February 2018

- Dept of Kokborok, Tripura University, India

- Kok Borok in the Ethnologue database

~~-The Gnome (talk) 11:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Changing vote to Delete per below. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: I'm not disputing the notability of the Kokborok language. The language is well covered by existing articles. The main concern with the article Kokborok script is that a script effectively does not exist. The writing system for the Kokborok language is Bengali or Latin script. The Ethnologue database you provide makes this point. This is also discussed in the existing articles (and touched on in the new one too). The movement for a dedicated Kokborok script is political which is somewhat aligned to Tripuri nationalism. Dedicated writing systems are proposed, yet as long as those proposals are not covered in reputable external sources, this contradicts verifiability and notability guidelines (for the script, whatever that is or may be) IMO.

Put differently, there's not such thing as "English script". We use Latin script. Similar concept. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, Jake Brockman. I stand corrected. Mea culpa. -The Gnome (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I haven't done any research into this, but purely from a WP:ATD point of view, this is discussed briefly in Kokborok#Kokborok script (Koloma), so a redirect there seems to make more sense than deletion. @Icewhiz: you were opposed to a redirect in your comment above, but consider if this is a better target than previously suggested. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Kokborok#Kokborok script (Koloma) is a good redirect, as we would be promoting the view that Koloma is the script for this language while it seems there are (2? more?) competing scripts.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 16 April 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.