Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silesian alphabet

{{ns:0|s}}

:{{la|Silesian alphabet}} ([{{fullurl:Silesian alphabet|wpReason={{urlencode:AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silesian alphabet}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

There's nothing like 'one Silesian alphabet" - the language is codificated in 10 different ways, besides the article does not cite any resources since September 2007. It's not neutral showing three codifications (I know only the first one, I haven't even seen the rest of them although my Silesian is pretty good and I often read the Silesian web pages. I think each major codification should be described alone. Timpul my talk 10:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Per above. Timpul my talk 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I appreciate your frustration with the article, but the matters you've mentioned sound like cleanup issues to me. If the article needs to be expanded, and the subject is a bit obscure, perhaps it could be tagged for expert attention. It seems to me that the alphabet (or alphabets) of virtually any living language is verifiable and notable; the rest is best addressed with sound editing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

:Ok, I've added tags for WikiProject Linguistics, and put a language writing system stub template on the article. Hopefully that will help it grow. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Xymmax. Frankly, if we were starting over from the beginning, I'm not sure that it was a good idea to have the proliferation of every variant on the Latin alphabet used to write every language; I'd rather see the article at Swedish orthography than Swedish alphabet, for example. Precedent stands against this preference, though. When an alphabet becomes distinct enough from the Latin with a handful of diacriticals thrown in is a judgment call - it might still be the case that Lithuanian alphabet is a good idea. Where there is no formal standard - and apparently there isn't one for Silesian - this becomes harder. I'm not an expert on Silesian in any case. I say keep the information in the article, and make it clear that the "alphabet" proposed is not standardized and just a proposal, if references can be found for those assertions. Then again, Silesian language is not so immense that this couldn't be merged into a section on Orthography. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Silesian language, if there is useful information. Could go into a section called "Writing system" or something, talking about how the Polish alphabet has been used to write it, until this alphabet came along (I'm no expert, but this is what I've picked up from places). There is a Silesian Wikipedia, so the script they use must be of some importance/relevance. BalkanFever 13:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Silesian language as suggested by Balkan. It looks to me as if this is a dialect making a bid to be recognised as a separate language (though I may be wrong). If so, what form of the version of the Latin alphabet should be used may well be under debate. However, it does not need to be a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

: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.