Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romanization of Nankinese

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 best arguments in this debate, as supported by policy and guidelines, fell on the 'delete' side of the debate. Daniel (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Nankinese

[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)

Has only two references.

The primary one is the Github-hosted outline of the romanization created by the WP page-creator+probable romanization-creator (else why is this one of 2 references and the only one describing the romanization? User:柳漫, and see https://github.com/uliloewi/lang2jin1/commit/2fdc822739d4dca0f00291a79646671669c94263). Hence it is WP:ORIGINAL research and WP:COI.
The second reference is an online pronunciation dictionary presented as an example of adoption of this romanization (http://cn.voicedic.com/) that appears to be crowdsourced, with no visible "About us" page apart from a Weibo page (and hence I believe it is fully plausible that 柳漫 themselves is responsible for usage of this romanization on the website).

There is also no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Suzukaze-c (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The input software base on Nankinese Pinyin is on GIT. It is downloaded and uesed by thousands of people in the world. A software or project on GIT is convincing enough for wiki. This is the reason why there is Vue.js on wiki. User:Suzukaze-c is active on Chinese wiki. He seems to be a supporter of CPC, whose policy is wiping out all languages and dialects except Putonghua in the territory. See the case of Tibet and Inner Mongolia--柳漫 (talk) 08:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have as yet no opinion on whether this article should be deleted or not, but must point out that Github is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Anyone can create an entry there. And whether the article Vue.js should exist, after being deleted in this discussion, is completely irrelevant to the article under consideration here. I am not a supporter of the Communist Party of China, but whether User:Suzukaze-c is or not is also irrelevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existing refrences do NOT support WP:GNG I did a search and did not find anything. The two other language articles lan 1 & lan 2 are essential the same as the English, the lan 2 article has a single additional reference that is not enough to make this article subject pass notability Jeepday (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeepday: FYI, all three pages are created by the same editor, and the Chinese Wikipedia page includes extra information about a second (first?) pre-modern romanization used in a 1902 publication (which is itself the additional reference). Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 08:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My institute studies different Chinese romanization systems including Nankinese. The input software based on this romanization is published on GIT, which proves it exists. And GIT shows it is based on a published dictionary. On zh.wiki there is another romanization of Nankinese. This article should be extended instead of deleting. The references on zh.wiki show sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG.--NeujorK (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(No one else has mentioned it, so I will: strong suspicions of a WP:BADSOCK. Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Suzukaze-c: I agree with Phil Bridger, whether you are a supporter of any group is irrelevant. But your phantasy is really ...--NeujorK (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no usable sources to be found in English and no one has pointed out usable sources in other languages. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sufficient reason for deleting. A lot of articles show no usable source in English, but show in other language. This article describes a romanization of a language, which has already received attention from academy.--NeujorK (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NeujorK: Can you elaborate (what "academy"?) and provide evidence? Suzukaze-c (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, my institute studies different Chinese romanization systems including Nankinese.--NeujorK (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Merely existing is not sufficient for inclusion. Reliable sources are necessary to establish notability. At present there are no secondary sources and only two primary sources cited. zh:南京話拉丁化方案 cites one additional source (which is in English, and is available on archive.org), but it seems to be a book about the Nanking topolect, not about this romanization system. Cnilep (talk) 08:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 1st page and the preface of Nanking Kuanhua show it is a doctoral thesis in Leipzig University. This means the romanization of Nankinese has got attention from academy since more than 100 years. Why should it be deleted? --柳漫 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 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.