Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwangwego alphabet (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mwangwego alphabet[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The notability is really unclear and not demonstrated. Holding lectures is certainly not a sign of notability, by itself. One quote from a government minister is also not a sign of notability. The claim about "slowly gaining a following" is unreferenced. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malawi-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:12, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussed in detail in "The Politics of Malawi’s Alphabet" in Speak. In 2012 there was an ISO proposal to encode the script in unicode. Briefly mentioned in the book African Literacies: Ideologies, Scripts, Education, also here and here. SpinningSpark 22:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite borderline:
- The only non-trivial coverage is in the Speak article, but is it a notable reliable source?
- The Unicode proposal doesn't include published examples of use (page 8, 6b).
- The other sources only mention Mwangwego trivially.
The general notability guideline says that multiple sources are generally expected, even if not required, and suggests including topics that are only mentioned in one source in another article. I'd be OK with having this mentioned in Languages of Malawi (currently redirects to Demographics) and in Chewa language, but I'm reluctant about the need for a separate article. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to merge and redirect this to another article you could have done it quietly and (probably) uncontroversially without bringing it to the circus of AfD. By bringing it here, you are declaring that you don't think the information should be on Wikipedia in any form. SpinningSpark 15:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Merge" or "Redirect" (as well as "Keep") are possible and reasonable outcomes of an AfD discussion.

An AfD proposer can change their mind, too. For example, when I started this AfD, I wasn't aware of the Unicode proposal and I thought about complete deletion. The new info makes me lean more toward "merge and redirect" than "delete". But not to keeping in its current form. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Spinningspark but I think the article can be greatly improved. Perhaps the corresponding Portuguese and Dutch versions might be useful. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No reason was given for questioning the reliability of the Speak magazine article. This is the organ of Journalists for Human Rights and if any profession should know about fact-checking, it is journalists. The JHR site also contains this posting which may count as RS under WP:NEWSBLOG or under WP:SPS (because the poster was the senior writer for the Encyclopedia of Manitoba). Other sources that discuss this subject in reasonable depth include Omniglot (writing systems and languages encyclopedia), Scriptsource, Kumatoo, and MEMIM Encyclopedia. SpinningSpark 10:31, 17 June 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.