Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BangaBhasha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BangaBhasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is quite a bit of discussion on the article talk page as to whether this article has the notability for a page here, so I've bringing this to the wider Wiki community. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keepdue to the inherent weakness of the nomination. Your job, as nominator, is to thoroughly research the notability if the topic, and if you conclude after due diligence that it is non-notable, bring it to AfD. You need to assert that it is non-notable, rather than equivocating. Otherwise, work on improving the article. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Maybe you should have read the talk page first. Google searches (including -wikipedia) give results that are mostly wiki mirrors, and a handful of discussion board posts. A web page about the project indicates it has been inactive for over a year. All this is mentioned on the talk page. You're supposed to be judging the article, not me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not judging you but rather evaluating your nomination. If you conclude that an article should be deleted, then I request that you say so unambiguously. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I read your nomination as indecisive. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cullen328 (talk)
- Comment Procedural nominations are done all the time, and even if the nomination is somehow a procedural error, it does not disqualify the AfD discussion from going forward. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY -- RoninBK T C 19:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am not judging you but rather evaluating your nomination. If you conclude that an article should be deleted, then I request that you say so unambiguously. Perhaps I misinterpreted, but I read your nomination as indecisive. Please correct me if I am wrong. Cullen328 (talk)
- Comment Maybe you should have read the talk page first. Google searches (including -wikipedia) give results that are mostly wiki mirrors, and a handful of discussion board posts. A web page about the project indicates it has been inactive for over a year. All this is mentioned on the talk page. You're supposed to be judging the article, not me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was not arguing that the discussion is "disqualified" but rather asking that the nominator state his/her conclusions about the notability of the topic, based on the results of their investigation. That's all. Cullen328 (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| Off-topic question about "Procedural nomination." Let's keep this discussion about the article itself, not about how the nomination occured |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Comment This is a valid procedural nomination - a user on the talk page already argued the article should be deleted but never actually nominated it. I agree with that person's argument and nominated for him. The reasons for deletion are already summarized on the talk page so there is no reason I need to state it a second time. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After further thought, reading the talk page and searching through Google, I have decided to change my recommendation, as I can't conclude that the software is notable. I did not intend to be disruptive when expressing my wish for a clear nomination. Cullen328 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm sad to say. (It exists!) The problem is that I can't locate anything on the topic that meets WP:V. I feel bad – wonder if I could do better if I could read Bangla and Hindi – but unless some other sources appear, don't see another option. (I think Indic computing and Hindawi Programming System can continue to mention its existence, but it sure would be nice to have a reference in a secondary source.) --Pnm (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2011 (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.