Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatwanika Sindhu Lipi

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 and redirect to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatwanika Sindhu Lipi (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)

A quick search for the subject of the article yielded no results except for a discussion on a forum that mentioned Indian nationalist conspiracy theories which mentioned the script as a "theory, mentions of the article in categories etc., and the article itself. There is insufficient evidence to assert that the subject of the article really exists. As such, it fails WP:GNG Hazarasp (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is high time to elimanate all articles lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into Sindhi language#Writing system redirect to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. A google books search for the variant spelling of hatvanika returns results that are few in number but good in quality, so the thing definitely exists. I haven't looked into it enough to have an opinion whether enough sources can be found for a standalone article, or whether this should only appear within another article. If anyone wants to look into this more, there are several further spelling variants listed in this book, so plugging these into a search engine might yield further results. – Uanfala 21:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala 21:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there's nothing to merge from this un-referenced (and confusing) stub, and as a misspelling this isn't a plausible search term. Thanks to Uanfala for finding what this is though; it's discussed at Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yes, I'd overlooked the bad state of the stub. So unless someone rewrites it (I'm still on the fence with regard to notability), it should be redirected to Sindhi workies#Hatta varnka (thanks for finding that out!). The redirect should then be tagged as {{R unprintworthy}}: not because of any misspelling (I've just created Hatwanika as an {{R from alternative romanisation}}), but because of Sindhu Lipi: a disambiguator that is unnecessary, overly long and miscapitalised. – Uanfala 09:38, 7 November 2017 (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.