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--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daba script[edit]

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

There seems to be no mention in reliable sources of the script. Fences&Windows 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. There's no doubt about the existence of the Dongba script. Fences&Windows 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator unless someone can reveal this actually does exist. Georgia guy (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a rather confused mess that is not at all helped by the fact that web searches almost universally show text that is clearly copied from Wikipedia (and at that mostly copied from an earlier, ungrammatical version of the article). Searches with Google books shows some confusion that either the Mosuo use the same Dongba pictograms as the maybe or maybe not related Nakhi, or that they don't have a written language at all and that there is some attempt being made to give them one based on the Dongba system. It's possible that Daba here means the same thing as Dongba and Daba are also the words for the shamanistic religions in both groups. At this point I think this ought to be deleted as it is propagating a lot of misinformation online; if someone sources it adequately it could be recreated, but it's telling that the article on the Mosuo references what seems to be the only decent modern work on the subject but does not use it to reference this claim. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source is baidu.baike.com which is a wikipedia-alike, a Chinese attempt at something like WP, so not a RS. A search on 達巴文, the Chinese name for the article, turns up WP, baidu.baike and a trivial dictionary entry. The external link at the Chinese version of the page is www.mosuoproject.org but that is far from clear: here it talks about scripts as modern creations, so not the one described in the article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:08, 20 December 2010 (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.