Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ћ


 * 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 Tshe. Merging can be done from the history of this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ћ

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I noticed this article due to an RM discussion ... but before we determine what to call the article, I think we need to reach a consensus on whether we should have an article on the topic in the first place. I have to question it. The topic seems to be about a very recently coined logogram (a neologism?) that received a brief flurry of news attention on the day it's creator suggested it. It seems extremely premature for us to have an article about it. An acceptable alternative to deletion might be to userfy until we have some evidence that this symbol is being seriously considered. Blueboar (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I'm a little torn about this one. On the one hand, it has 11 sources, but on the other, it seems to have literally just been "invented." Meaning, it's probably too soon to see if this will actually go anywhere. Personally, I think that at the moment it should be turned back into a redirect to Tshe. ALH (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although there are eleven citations, they were all published within a week of each other, all over the last ten days. It's a neologism, notability is not temporary, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. (Gee, I wish there was a single character that encapsulated all those ideas.) Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Userfy and see if it grows... Technical 13 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment if this is deleted, then it should be recreated as a redirect to Tshe, because the glyph is that letter, that was usurped by the meaning used by this article (as documented in the references in the article.) It still is the Serbian letter. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It should go without saying that this discussion pertains only to edits after this one. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Restore original redirect to Tshe. The Mathis logogram is not really notable, in spite of a brief news spike (see WP:NOTNEWS). -- 203.171.197.16 (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment up until 2013, this redirected to Tshe, so deletion should take that into consideration, if it is to be redirected back to Tshe, by deleting the revisions from 2013. Userfication should also take that into consideration, by only moving the 2013 revisions into userspace. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 10:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not sure how Paul Mathis can be said to have "created" a symbol that already existed, anyway, so it's not clear to me that this article really has a distinct subject from Tshe. It seems more accurate that Mathis suggested using a symbol that we already have an article on (Tshe), for a purpose we already have an article on (The). And the suggestion itself seems not to be a notable one. -- 202.124.88.18 (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply comment. If you read the article, it can be seen that Mathis only noticed after creation that his symbol was the same. Mat  ty  .  007  10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What the source (news story) says is "Mathis concedes the likeness, but insists he was a long way down the road on his project before he became aware of it. Over lunch in his city eatery Henry and the Fox, he shows me the preliminary sketchwork for "th" on his iPad, and there are lots and lots of iterations. Does it prove the chronology? Perhaps not, but for what it's worth I believe him." -- not quite the same thing at all. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And you can't "create" something that already exists, in spite of what this story suggests. -- 202.124.88.39 (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep or userfy. I am in favour of keeping this, it has received remarkable coverage for such a new thing, and it is quite possible that it will catch on. However, if I am outnumbered, as currently appears likely, I will move this into my sandbox and see what happens. Mat  ty  .  007  10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is said on Notability (events)] that " In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist)". There is a source from Time, and many other major news sources. Mat  ty  .  007  10:35, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point.... this is a good example of why we need to actually examine the sources and find out what they say about the topic, and not simply say "look, sources X, Y and Z mention it, it must be notable" ... note that the guideline calls for "In-depth coverage" and "feature length" articles in sources like Time. So let's actually look at the cited sources... is the coverage really "In-depth" or "feature length"?  I question that.
 * (as a side comment... if all we did was count sources, one might get an initial impression that the neologistic use of this symbol as a logogram for the word "the" is actually more notable than the more traditional  Serbian/Cyrillic alphabet letter.  After all, the article under discussion cites several sources, while the Tshe article does not cite a single source.  Of course, initial impressions can be deceiving - a note to our linguistics project editors... please find sources for the Tshe article, to demonstrate why that letter is considered a notable topic. It shouldn't be too difficult, but it does need to be done). Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. -- 202.124.74.9 (talk) 11:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. Something very similar (combining those two letters) was proposed in 1916: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/fontblog/archive/2006/08/10/missed-opportunity-for-ligatures.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.105.57.45 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ћ should redirect to Tshe. If we decide that "The Tap" is indeed notable, it should be, for example, at The Tap — not hijacking the Serbian letter. Goldenshimmer (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Edit: I see that Poobarb already made this point at RM. Whoops. Goldenshimmer (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reminder - This is an AfD discussion, not an RM discussion... Please focus on the article's topic, not the title. The question for this discussion is whether the topic is notable enough for an article to exist... not what to call that article. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. This interview with Mathis indicates that he is actually using the Serbian Cyrillic character Tshe, so it's clear that all he has really done is develop and market a keyboard app using Tshe to mean "the." There is actually no new logogram to write an article about. -- 202.124.73.7 (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a mere news story.  I have added anything relevant to English articles. Hogweard (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or Userfy Per Technical 13, I'll go for a delete or userfy- it seems to be a subject of a news flash and as per 202.124.73.7, all he's actually done is develop and market a keyboard app using Tshe to mean "the." There is actually no new logogram to write an article about. jcc (tea and biscuits) 09:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Tshe. -- cyclopia  speak!  09:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Tshe. The search term is potentially valid as a redirect, but most of the existing article is off-topic, and citing the usage of "The" and "And" in English, which has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Even the creator himself said "Is this important? ... No. Is this going to change the world? Not really." (probably because it was something he made up one day). If it proves to have enduring notability, we can expand things out where we left off. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. There has already been a content merge to English articles. The redirect has to go to Tshe, however, because it is part of an existing system of redirecting characters. The editor who replaced an important redirect by the present content has broken links at places like ISO/IEC 8859 and List of Cyrillic letters. -- 202.124.73.19 (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.