Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Indian scripts (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. A more focused discussion might at some point result in a consensus, but that was not well developed here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Indian scripts

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ancient Indian scripts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been created by a series of cut and paste moves from other articles. Wikipedia requires attribution when material is copied from one article to another. The article does not add much compared to Brahmic scripts and is a case of WP:CONTENTFORK. Besides that, the scope also has a big problem, what even is "ancient"? The Indus and Multani scripts are seperated by about 4500 years in earliest attestations. So then, are we just talking about "scripts found in the subcontinent of India"? Then why not include Latin and Arabic too, both with centuries of usage. I don't see a reason to keep this article Glennznl (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra, Chaipau, and TrangaBellam: Pinging you here to request you to repeat your arguments. Glennznl (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original subject of this article was “Pre-Islamic scripts of Pakistan” which has some coherence. Now it is much wider in scope and since it consists of cut and paste sections from existing articles about individual scripts, I’m less sure of the value of it. It seems to me better material for template than for a compendium article, as a template would alert readers to the existence of other scripts and allow navigation between them. But I don’t really have a view on the proposal to delete this. Mccapra (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not for resolving content issues. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abhishek0831996: The issue is not a content issue, the issue is that the page should not exist, since it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, copy-pasting pieces of other articles without any research or scope on what "ancient Indian scripts" even are. --Glennznl (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhawangupta: Please explain what an "ancient Indian script" is. --Glennznl (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dhawangupta: This would mean half the page would have to get deleted because only a few of the scripts are that old. If we do not delete the page, the only solution I see is creating an article called "Writing systems of India" (for example see hi:भारतीय लिपियाँ) and turn Ancient Indian scripts into a redirect to that page, where it directs to a subsection for ancient scripts. --Glennznl (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Dhawanagupta. I agree with your proposal and the page with new title can have "Ancient scripts" section under which some of these can be added that came before 5th century CE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not an easy one, as the article looks like it is notable at first glance. However, I agree with nom that this is essentially a worse version of articles like Brahmic scripts. There is nothing "holding the article together", so to say: Every individual script itself is quite obviously notable. But simply putting all these notable scripts together in an article does not make the "compilation article" a notable subject. There are no sources about "Ancient Indian Scripts" as a reasonable category. As a fictional example to illustrate my point: I could make an article called Famous Ancient Indians and then make sections for Buddha, Ashoka, Kalidasa and the like. These are all well-known and notable, but simply putting them into an article together does not make sense. What do they have in common? Not enough!
As in this fictional example, it does not make sense to put all these scripts together here. Have them be in articles about their scholarly categories, such as grouping all Brahmic scripts together. There are sources to justify that grouping, unlike for "Ancient Indian scripts". --LordPeterII (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.