Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyrillization of Arabic


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Cyrillization of Arabic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced, probably original research. Burzuchius (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
 * Burzuchius (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Burzuchius (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Burzuchius (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Burzuchius (talk) 14:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Cyrillization of Arabic and Cyrillization of German have corresponding articles on the Russian wikipedia, where they look appropriately sourced. – Uanfala 14:28, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 14:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as all 5 articles have a basis in systems commonly used, however unofficial, to which they were simply recording such for Wikipedia purposes. I would also like to add that in the circumstances of Cyrillization of Hungarian and Cyrillization of Georgian, there is at least one credible source, and for Cyrillization of Arabic and Cyrillization of German, as Uanfala acknowledged, both have co'responding articles in Russian at ru:Арабско-русская практическая транскрипция and ru:Немецко-русская практическая транскрипция (along with de:Deutsch-russische Transkription). The Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature is, indeed, an attempted standardization unofficial transcription system already in use and, as such, is suitable for deletion. User:Учхљёная (talk,philosophy,edits). 20:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Cyrillization of Arabic and Cyrillization of German. They are well-sourced on other Wikis.
 * Weak keep Cyrillization of Georgian and Hungarian Cyrillic alphabet. Unsourced, but they look genuine enough. Note that Samuel P. Bateman, linked in both articles, redirects to Sovietization where he is not mentioned.
 * Delete Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature as admitted WP:OR – "this article uses a reconstructed pronunciation from various languages". The citations all relate only to IUPAC nomenclature in Latin script. Narky Blert (talk) 12:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature which is borderline nonsense. I'd lean towards keep-ing the others, especially as this is a bulk nomination. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 04:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep everything except Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature. Transliteration systems are inherently notable, I believe, since there is a history and literature about the development of each. Carrite (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Cyrillization of Arabic and I have a thought/suggestion. Although it has no reference now it is verifiable academic topic which no educated person can doubt. Its Russian version is well sourced and have many print sources. Also this concept is treated in many academic books by respected academic publishers, Oxford UP, Routledge and others. The nomination reason is also invalid reason for deletion. Please see the valid reasons for AfD. First reason is one-word "Unsourced", not only this is invalid deletion reason the article has many sources in Russian version, and we don't delete content that are verifiable and unsourced per guideline WP:NEXIST. the second reason is also empty, we don't deal with probable on Wikipedia we deal on verifiable. The nom is not certain it is OR, but he is merely thinking. When he is sure, he can renomite with detailed reason and evidence. I am also calling for this AfD to be unbundled, because it hinder fair assessment of each article's merit. And no strong valid reason for deletion. If the nom wishes he can nominate each article with detailed, clear and valid reason for deletion. I am saying this because all these topic are academic concepts not trivial local musician bio or village market that we can summarily delete after few delete, delete vote–Ammarpad (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep everything except Cyrillization of Chemical nomenclature. I'm in agreement with those above who defend the value of some of these - they are useful, and easy (for linguists) to police. The chemical article, besides being indecipherable, seems to be very narrowly focused on just one area, and people would be better served in this instance by going to a translation tool. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  20:48, 4 December 2017 (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.