Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonetically Intuitive English (2nd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 13:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetically Intuitive English

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

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

Notability concerns. The PCWorld reference doesn't demonstrate notability to me and I don't see anything else substantial. Chrome Web Store suggests this has ~1000 users and was last updated in 2015 so I wouldn't expect to find coverage. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to fail WP:SIGCOV. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Of the three citations:

The PCWorld article is the only thing that even comes close to significant coverage. It's more of a brief news/mini-review article than anything else, but if there were a couple of other sources, I could accept it.
PIE's own website; no use.
As a parody science site, Speculative Grammarian doesn't qualify as a reliable source.

I found nothing else promising. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At one point, there was reference to an IDG article. I think it's still at https://web.archive.org/web/20160301000000*/http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=A9FBA1EB-91AC-E9B1-00C32AF8D1DA1CED - but it appears to be just a copy of the PCWorld article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2021 (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.