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 Lack of consensus between KEEP and REDIRECT—I'm going to go out on a limb and close this with the functional outcome of KEEP. There is sufficient evidence to raise reasonable probability that the key claim to notability is true and that time will lead to better sourcing in support of that claim. I also think that retaining the article rather than redirecting is a reasonable step in terms of working against systematic bias; to be clear, I do not think that the persons with the REDIRECT opinions are to be accused of systematic bias in any way. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SHAHIDLIPI[edit]

Lacks any real notability; two of the "references" are exact copies of one another and the third only mentions "ShahidLipi" as part of a list of software. Failed PROD. Collectonian (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets' not delete the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.68.236 (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for the moment. If sources were added, it would be clearly notable. Give it 3 months, to see if sources surface. Sources for this would be few and far between, likely mentioned in a single edition in a magazine like PCW. scope_creep (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It really needs to be cleaned up. I did a very minimal job, but since I'm not really sure what it's about, I can't really vote on it, can I? —Scouter Sig 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relist Don't know about the notability, but it appears to be. Probably needs to be relisted. • Lawrence Cohen 23:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep or merge to the Bengali script article, in case the information can be verified. (BBC story and an article in The Daily Ittefaq certainly would be enough to at least merge.) If nobody is around who can perform the required research though, it probably has to go for now. --Allefant (talk) 13:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bengali script. No notability beyond the claim that it was the "first Bengali implementation in computers". One of the references says that it "failed to sell in the market"; Google turns up about five passing mentions minus the Wikipedia and its mirrors. utcursch | talk 12:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it indeed was the "first Bengali implementation in computers", then it defintely can be considered notable and as such would warrant atleast a Merge with Bengali script if not Keep - Failed PROD or not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antariki Vandanamu (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 December 2007 (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.