Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ancient Indian scripts

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Glennznl (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Indian scripts edit

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

(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 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) 12:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable subject. The article says 'found' as in 'discovered', 'invented', etc. Accesscrawl (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Accesscrawl: I don't see what you are refering to, as the word "found" is not found in the text even once. The subject is not notable either, as I clearly described the issues with the scope of the article.

Noteworthy too, is that the creator of the article has been banned for being a suck-puppet user. --Glennznl (talk) 07:36, 26 June 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.