Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwangwego 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. j⚛e deckertalk 22:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Mwangwego alphabet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable language system. Sources appear to be affiliated with the creator of the system. Results of Google have questionable notability. Unresolved notability since January 2012. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: per arguments by Mr. Guye (nominator). Quis separabit?  23:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is the subject of this article: which interestingly explains what it is about better than the Wikipedia page does. Mentioned a number of times in other sources e.g. this proposal to encode it in Unicode and this talk abstract by a theoretical physicist. It could be significant as a political phenomenon. I wonder if there is any coverage in Bantu-language newspapers. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is a recognized script which is currently in use and has been around for more than 30 years in a location that most readers and editors have never been to, and probably a fair share of people have never heard of the nation alone. Wikipedia has a consensus on keeping locations, including villages and "dead languages". I see no reason to omit the article simply on the basis that an abugida for a foreign language, that Google cannot even translate to, on the basis of an English search results on Google. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - it exists, but fails WP:GNG without sufficient reliable secondary sources. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * keep, plenty of hits on google. 78.144.252.27 (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, citations have been filled in. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - It appears to have be semi-notable enough (a quick google) and has been around a long while. Lack of referenced usage outside Mwangwego.com is worrying. Couldn't find much academic or book references, apart from this mention on academia.edu KylieTastic (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2014 (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.