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 redirect to Tulu language#Writing system. Disregarding the SPAs, there is consensus not to have a separate article on this topic. Where to redirect to and whether to merge anything remain questions to be settled through the editorial process. Sandstein 11:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tulu script[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tulu script (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The script, per the cited britannica source, appears to be a variety of Grantha script, rather than a separate script entirely. For this reason, I would propose that this page be redirected to the page of the Grantha script Tigalari script (updated at 07:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)), where the topic can be adequately covered. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia many newly created script have their own page. Where as this tulu script has a historical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iampuneeth (talk • contribs) 23:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC) — Iampuneeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The citation that's being used doesn't actually support keeping this article. The source, a letter, is written by a single instructor at the Karnataka Tulu Sahitya Academy (although we run into a sparsely sourced page for its Wikipedia entry...). And, that letter (which, granted, doesn't actually carry all that much weight being what appears to be an WP:SPS) doesn't actually object to considering Tulu and Tigalari as the same script; the quibble is with the name of the script. If that alone were a justified reason to split the pages, WP:POVFORK might as well be dead. Covering the two scripts together is more than reasonable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of unified script is not appropriate as it deviates from the idea of evolution of script. Several inscriptions diciphered in Tulu are in late 21st century and are still being discovered. Multiple researches done previously are inadequate or lack enough evidence to classify Tigalari and Tulu as same script. There is clear attempt to overshadow Tulu with Tigalari. The epigraphists and paleographic experts have found multiple stone inscriptions dated to 10th CE, If you look into few stone inscriptions it is found that Tulu script was used to write Tulu sentences, and Kannada script was used to write Kannada sentences in a single stone inscription. This is substantial proof that Tulu was used in administration along with Kannada and script itself was Tulu. I Request you to don't delete this article. I think the tigalari page needs a complete cleanup as it includes lot of wrong information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr anonymousMr (talk • contribs) 08:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.unicode.org/L2/L2021/21213-tulu-reply.pdf
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.
More