Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siddham: The Asia Inscriptions Database


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Siddham: The Asia Inscriptions Database

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This database doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyond Boundaries: Religion, Region, Language and the State. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mentioned in academic papers e.g., has a paper about it here: (British Library publication that largely describes the database as opposed to a research paper, but it is still a publication from the British Library about it) and is discussed in published books such as (Inscriptions of the Aulikaras and Their Associates - Daniel Balogh.) It is ERC funded, with British Library match funding. This is WP:N. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was intrigued to hear that you'd found a paper about it,, but the link you give appears to be to the BL library catalogue entry for the database, not a paper. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, I will strike through in a moment. The related URL is not in fact British Library, it is British museum and the page has gone, but referred to the database here. However that was a web page and not a paper. But that is not why this is notable. It is notable because it finds its way into books and publications. E.g., , , as well as the ones already mentioned. You say "This database doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." But considering the database is relatively new, and the subject is academic, it actually has good coverage in a range of secondary sources. Certainly enough to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. It isn't possible to write an even borderline article about this based on independent secondary sources, and as such we shouldn't have one. I can't give much weight to the mentions above; it's a database, items in it will be cited fairly frequently. Indeed, if we can only find five instances of it being cited, that's an indicator of lack of notability. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was thinking myself that what has found are citations rather than coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. I reviewed the above sources and common databases and am not seeing coverage about the database itself, nevertheless significant coverage. I would support a redirect to a list of similar databases, since this tends to be mentioned among other inscriptions databases/software, but we have no such list right now. czar  19:03, 10 September 2022 (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.