Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramaic Latin Alphabet


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. &mdash; J I P | Talk 09:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Aramaic Latin Alphabet
To the non-specialist this article might look like it has substance: it doesn't. The article does not cite sources and does not claim which Aramaic language this alphabet might be used for (see Aramaic language for the diverse history of the language). The fact is that the system as laid out does not make sense in itself, and it looks like the work of someone who knows a little of the language, but has not studied it properly. Thus, it is original research. The authors, Sargonious and 12.15.7.70, have previously contributed nonsense about Aramaic to Wikipedia. I also note that the article Aramaic Latin alphabet, to which a user moved this article at an early stage, also exists. It seems that the authors didn't realise where it had gone! Gareth Hughes 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this being put up for deletion on the basis that none of you are Aramaic speakers to argue about what I am.
 * Delete per nomination. — Gareth Hughes 15:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be a bit of an edit war going on. As far as I can see, Sargonious's edits are very recent and my Aramaic is too rusty (ie nonexistent) to sort this out.  Should there be some discussion elsewhere?   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   16:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment My Aramaic is good and this article is nonsense. If there is no attempt to add references and supporting comments to the article, it remains nonsense and should be deleted. --Gareth Hughes 17:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I toyed with the idea of voting for a redirect to Aramaic alphabet, but there's not really any point, is there? --Angr/undefined 21:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I moved it and tried cleaning it up thinking it seemed like nonsense but giving it the benefit of the doubt. Unless good soures for this can be found it shold be deleted with some deterrent from recreation added (either redirect or deletepage template) gren グレン 00:07, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As an Aramaic speaker, I ask you to read Verifiability, and remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. --Gareth Hughes 10:46, 11 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.