Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sawgoek


 * 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   delete. –MuZemike 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sawgoek

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There seems to be no reliable source for the existence of such a writing system. The only reference in the article is a news article, which seems to have been copied from a self-published article. This source is unreliable, but it contains only a brief mention with tenuous evidence: the phrase (meaning "original writing") occurs in the Baeu Rodo text, and early inscriptions have been found in Guangxi, but no authority is quoted for a link (or anything else). The image in the article is unrelated. Kanguole 13:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No particular opinion. As original article creator, I have to admit that the article does not meet WP:V, and fixing this might not be achievable. I don't really mind what happens from here on in. --  李博杰  &#124; —Talk contribs email 15:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As it stands the article is based on an unreliable and inaccurate source - also an image added is deinitely not Sawgoek, but a much later system. There are other sources that talk about Sawgeok this however the article does not reflect these. The article calls sawgoek logographic which is questionable to say the least. Johnkn63 (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What are those sources, and what do they say about Sawgoek? Kanguole 10:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One source is "《古壮字字典》方块古壮字研究", http://www.docin.com/p-103520563.html . Johnkn63 (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies whilst the above thesis does mention sawndip and what may have come before it does not use the term "sawgoek". The use of the "sawgoek" in Chinese are restricted to copies of the newspaper article. Not only should the article be deleted but the references to it should be removed. Johnkn63 (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete -- there are no reliable sources for this article, and it fails notability (not a single hit for Sawgoek on either Google Books or Google Scholar). Even if we coud find some reliable sources it is doubtful that there is enough information on this legendary writing system to justify a separate article. BabelStone (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete -- the article is based on an unreliable source and incorrect. Johnkn63 (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2011 (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.