Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chakma Unicode Font


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Chakma Unicode Font

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be spam promoting a font download. The writing system itself already has an article, and substantial overlap exists between that article and the one nominated for deletion. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason; it was made by the same user and promotes the same thing:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 11:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This does not need its own article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Chakma Unicode Font cites one decent reference, the Script Encoding Initiative document. The "bibliography" is copied from that reference, so is not intellectually independent of it. None of the external links could help establish notability. Either they are not independent reliable sources, or they are tangential to the topic.


 * RibengUni cites a different good reference, an article in Kaler Kantho. The author copied the same "bibliography" here, but the entries in it say nothing about the product, they predate it by between 8 and 30 years. Again, none of the external links could help to establish notability, as they are to such sources as the company that makes the product, and the Facebook pages of its founders.


 * Searches of the usual Google types, De Gruyter, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, and ProQuest, for both topics, found a single mention, basically an ad inviting linguists to participate in the Script Encoding Initiative. The sources are insufficient to meet WP:GNG, they do not justify stand alone articles on these topics.


 * Alphabet/language articles for other script languages often have a section on alphabet/script/writing-systems with a paragraph or two about Romanization, transliteration and character encoding. I would recommend merge to Chakma alphabet or Chakma language, except that there is no reliably sourced information that is not already duplicated there. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2016 (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.