Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrillish

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:29, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Cyrillish
I'm not certain whether this should be considered original research, vanity, or non-noteable. No links to this page, & no relevant hits on Google (all of which appear to be one form or another of bad English for Cyrillic). Any objections to deletion? -- llywrch 22:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * del. You forgot to mention "hoax". Mikkalai 23:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, this could be speedied but for the chance this was posted as sincere original research. Wyss 01:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * When I first saw this article, I thought it was about a phenomena like Franglais or Spanglish; someone who had not read the article might think the same thing, & object to deletion. Also, I'm not that familiar with the VfD process (as probably can be seen from my edit history on this nomination). And lastly, when it concerns deleting articles, I feel it's better to be cautious than bold. -- llywrch 17:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax. Rje 01:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How strange. In high school a friend and I devised a way of writing English in the Cyrillic alphabet and called it Cyringlish. Anyhow, delete this unless some form of notability can be established. &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 03:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP, this is **NOT** a hoax! i created this, and i am very serious about it! i don't see why you would think it was a hoax, you see the alphabet, with pronounciations, then you see examples! how does this constitute a hoax?!  i have several pages of my cyrillish work that i can upload, if anyone needs to see them!  please keep this! it is NOT a hoax!  --Klipper 19:42, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that this is an actual working alphabet, but it doesn't seem to be widely used by any group of people. Its overall influence on society at large currently seems to be virtually nothing (or if there is some significant population with widespread use of this alphabet the article doesn't mention it) and thus it is not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia article. People invent new writing systems all the time and an encyclopedia can't include everybody's personal projects. &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 03:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting stuff, Klipper. Unfortunately, this falls under the headings of both "original research" and/or "original essay" which means delete regardless.  Why not either move the content to a place like Everything2 or Wikigeeks, or better still, put the info on your user page? - Lucky 6.9 23:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research and/or a hoax. --Pt 04:20, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable original research. Maybe someday it will become notable, as it's interesting, but until then it doesn't belong here. DreamGuy 02:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for the above reasons. Ropers 03:23, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research/hoax. Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:28, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete BACbKA 14:04, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. You are not (yet) George Bernard Shaw saturnight 00:41, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * i don't think there is anything wrong with having a wikipedia page for this! ... so it's taking up a few extra kilobytes! its easier for people to run aross it.  but... i'll put it in my user page :-/ --Klipper 17:35, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.