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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Caucasian mythoepic alphabet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artificial, apparently recently invented script, no signs of notability or independent reliable coverage anywhere. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The title might not get you anything because it was generated by Google translate, originally as "mythoephic" (neither occurs in the OED, so I don't know where Google got it). — kwami (talk) 10:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Intended for mythopoeic perhaps? —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the original Russian appears to be "мифоэпический алфавит" (mifoepičeskij alfavit) according to the two webpages cited, and the "эпический" part does translate as "epic". But in any case, the question is rather moot, since the whole thing squarely falls under WP:MADEUP. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The book is listed at the Abxaz Internet Library.[1] (Check under 'D' for 'Daur'.) Daur is Adyge, not Abxaz, but evidently someone there thought it worth including. I don't have a problem with it, as long as we're clear that it's a recently constructed script. BTW, I moved the article to "Mytho-Circassian script", following the single English source that's been presented. (And correcting their transcription: evidently they don't know what "Mifo-" means. They also call it "Ancient Adyghe", but IMO that is misleading.) — kwami (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence has been supplied that this recently made-up alphabet satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a place for publicizing things one has made up. Edison (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an example of WP:TOOSOON. The script was recently created, and there's little coverage of it. It might be more widespread in the future, but until then, the subject doesn't warrant an article.--xanchester (t) 01:21, 25 October 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.