Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanagari


 * 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 merge to Devanagari transliteration. Exact merge target and scope can be determined in a separate discussion on the talk page but there is no reason to delete this article completely.  So Why  12:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Romanagari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Suggesting deletion since original research and promotional purpose without any citation.IMO Other articles are already available on en wikipedia to take care of essential aspects of this article.

Mahitgar (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Devanagari Mostly unsourced WP:OR with doubtful independent notability. Searches turn up primarily nonWP:RS with the occasional academic proposal (no completed studies, apparently). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Very selective merge to Devanagari transliteration; there don't appear to be any references, but some of the information may be useful. I note that User:Pare Mo suggested this merge in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romanagari&diff=next&oldid=713800870 April 2016], but no discussion came from it. 'Devanagari transliteration' may need better sources, but it does have 21 footnotes and a mess of external links. Merging to Devanagari might make the section unbalanced. Cnilep (talk) 03:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems some one else earlier tried to nominate article for deletion but some one else removed that notice without citing any reason.
 * Mahitgar (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle anyone who objects to deletion can remove a Proposed deletion tag. The Article for deletion tag initiates a discussion like this one, and it should not be removed until the discussion runs its course. But of course best practice is to provide at least an edit summary when removing a PROD. The editor who removed that one appears to be an indefinitely blocked sock puppet. Cnilep (talk) 01:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak delete. While Google just gives <1000 hits, I notice the term is used in some books decades old . Few low quality hits on Google Scholar . News coverage at, through that newspaper is hardly quality. I am not sure if this is a notable concept, two notable topics merged into one, or just some (sic!) noise, since I am not a linguist. However, given the pre-Internet reference, the article claims "a slang word coined by bloggers", and the general poorly referenced state of the article, I think this may require WP:TNT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:14, 28 March 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.