Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devanagari ka


 * 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. Consensus here is clearly to keep the article, and participants here are encouraged to further discuss matters regarding the article, such as moving it, on the article's talk page. A discussion is also occurring regarding macro-level matters regarding these types of articles at the recently created Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Writing systems discussion. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 10:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Devanagari_ka
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on a single character of the Devanagari script. I don't think any specific character in this script (other than ॐ, of course) is notable enough for its own article, and the content of the article essentially is a guidebook on the diacritics and conjuncts of the character (encyclopedic content on this is already adequately covered in the Devanagari article, anyway), as well as grammar for words in which the character is used as part of words in various languages. GSMR (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and Move to Ka (Indic) or similar, on the example of Ka (kana). A treatment of the larger Indic consonants would be appropriately encyclopedic, even though the individual Devanagari consonant is probably too limited in scope - see Aleph for a Semitic corollary. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 31.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep where it is, or maybe move to Ka (Devanagari). This is no different than Yi (Cyrillic), Ka (kana), etc. No reason to conflate Indic scripts just because they're "exotic", unless we're willing to conflate Latin, Cyrillic, and Greek. (Also, going by the petty edit wars we get over Indic scripts, making the letter articles about Brahmic scripts in general will end up being a headache to patrol.) I do wonder about the appropriateness of listing grammatical particles, but that's a content discussion. — kwami (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There is almost a one-to-one correspondence between the letters of the Indic scripts, much more than in Greek and its descendants: it is not inappropriate to "conflate" them. But this discussion belongs on the talk page of this article which should be kept. Gorobay (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We do, however, group the Canaanite/Phoenecian/Semitic letters together, precicely because there is probably no reason to ever have a full article on the Syriac letter Kaph. So the real question is whether limiting this article to only the Devanagari letter instead of the pan-Brahmi letter is bad engineering in terms of what is going to logically end up here anyway. I think that the only chance we have of actually getting any coverage of something like Kharoshthi Tttha is to have articles for the Brahmi archetypes, so this article will either incorporate that constelation of interrelated characters, or it's going to end up duplicating the article which does incorporate the larger Brahmi scripts, and will eventually get deleted on the basis of redundancy. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good argument. But for that talk page, I think. Or maybe better at project writing systems. Would be a good time to do it, with only two of the articles written. — kwami (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you already started the conversation at Writing Systems. So let's get a Speedy keep on this AfD while we work out the proper scope of articles like this. For the record, what is the second article? VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 18:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Devanagari kha. Gorobay (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Danke. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Note also the existence of A, B, C and so forth. The several letters of the Latin alphabet have complicated histories and easily support articles.  I see no reason why the Indic letters cannot also support articles.  My understanding is that most of the Indic scripts are essentially graphic variations on one another, though they've taken on hugely different appearances.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:14, 4 February 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.