Talk:Ancient scripts of the Indian subcontinent

Attribution
This article has been created by a series of cut and paste moves from other articles. Wikipedia requires attribution when material is copied from one article to another. Mccapra (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from this, I think this article does not really add much compared to Brahmic scripts and is a case of WP:CONTENTFORK. Besides that, the scope also has a big problem, what even is "ancient"? The Indus and Multani scripts are seperated by about 4500 years in earliest attestations. So then, are we just talking about "scripts found in the subcontinent of India"? Then why not include Latin and Arabic too, both with centuries of usage. I don't see a reason to keep this article. --Glennznl (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . This article should not exist. Chaipau (talk) 00:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the abovve comments. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's three (potentially, four) editors finding this page to be of dubious merit. I don't think that we need to wait further. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A consensus has been reached here, but I can't get the page deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. After 11 days I only got a poorly researched argument with nothing happening, while supposedly the discussion ends after 7 days. I don't think a copy-paste article from a banned sockpuppet needs any discussion to begin with, so how can we get this page deleted now? --Glennznl (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * since the previous AfD was withdrawn, I do believe that a second one is allowed. I don't believe that this is eligible for speedy deletion as the creator was not evading a block at the time, not as far as I can see anyway. It also can't be PRODed due to the previous AfD. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I withdrew the previous AfD myself since nothing was happening after the time was passed and no meaningful discussion followed, thinking I should just launch a speedy deletion instead. Should I now launch an AfD for the second time? We already reached a concensus here, so I don't think this formality will be helpful. --Glennznl (talk) 11:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't think of another way that the article could be deleted other than AfD as I'm struggling to see which of the WP:CSD criteria it would be able to meet. Someone may also propose a valid WP:ATD at the AfD. Perhaps it could be converted into a redirect? Even though the last one was poorly attended, a second one may have a higher attendance. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 12:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have launched a second discussion and pinged the users of this earlier discussion, hopefully this will go better. --Glennznl (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently a few users find this copy-pasted content fork very valuable to keep so the vote to delete it failed for the second time. I'm giving up here. --Glennznl (talk) 06:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I forgot to !vote. I am sorry. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:50, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, it would have failed anyways because of a lack of consensus. So this copy-paste page will stay around, being useful to absolutely nobody. --Glennznl (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)