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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keyscript[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about a writing system that does not appear to be notable. Please see Talk:Keyscript for the author's argumentation in favour of the article being kept, as well as a list of links to websites where Keyscript is mentioned. Unfortunately, none of the sites is a reliable source (Best of the Web doesn't qualify I'm afraid), and only one of them ([1]) has more than a trivial mention of Keyscript, so the basic notability criterion of significant coverage in reliable independent sources (see WP:GNG) is not met. There is also no actual claim of notability per Wikipedia's definition in the article or in the reasoning on the talk page. That a number of people around the world have bought a product doesn't make the product notable. bonadea contributions talk 10:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following webpage has a non-trivial reference to Keyscript:

https://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/browse_thread/thread/2f25e97ac9a9d9b2/5040f48a5040d120?show_docid=5040f48a5040d120&hl=pl & Go to Rustom Mody’s contribution

Cassyjanek (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Wasn't that already on your list of links?) That's corroborative evidence that it exists, but not everything mentioned in ephemeral discussions is "notable". —Tamfang (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the article's talk page, but was added there after this AfD was created, so I asked her to copy it here. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is one person in a Usenet News Google Groups thread who talks about the system. Usenet Google Groups is a self-published source, not a reliable source, and the discussion is not particularly extensive in any case. As Tamfang says, it shows that the system exists (which was never in doubt :-) ) but not that it's notable. --bonadea contributions talk 17:55, 17 June 2012 (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.
More