Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unialphabet


 * 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! 21:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Unialphabet

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

The one source provided in the article does not demonstrate notability and is not independent, which also raises questions about the verifiability of the article's current information. My searches did not reveal further source material, so the best course of action seems to be deleting the article. Toadspike (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per my rationale in (q.v.) Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum:, obtained a copy of the book, and found that this article is false. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It is a true sign of the extent to which wild west conditions gave power to unscrupulous editors who were willing to advance false narratives that a scandal like this involving downright falsehoods is still not cleared up 14 years after it was first made mention of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete concepts cannot be adequate sourced to a work that is the one expression of them, we would need sources that discuss the purposes and uses of this concept that are secondary, the one source here is primary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 1 March 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.