Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription


 * 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   no consensus. As there is no clear consensus here, I am closing it as no concensus, but with no prejudice against renomination for deletion  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Alsószentmihály Rovas inscription

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Notability and article content contested in another deletion discussion. Vanisaac (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as a fringe theory content fork. See Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas. This is part of a rash of articles created by the same editor, all of which are at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Changing to Neutral. This indivdual artefact may scrape the notability criteria. However, the article was originally used to support the existence of an alleged "Khazarian Rovas" script. (See Articles for deletion/Khazarian Rovas.) If kept, the assertions in this article need to be checked for accuracy and the degree to which they actually correspond to the sources cited. Voceditenore (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Do not delete as a scientific description of a well-known famous relic. A transcription made by an officially acknowledged Hungarian scholar Assoc. Prof. Vékony is included, which is surely correct. However, if anybody knows a more accurate, published transcription - it is possible to include. This article fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Alensha's arguments in the Articles_for_deletion/Szarvas_Rovas_inscription should be considered in the case of this article as well, since the same authors are referred in the both articles. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 18:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.  —Voceditenore (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Voceditenore (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the term "Rovas" and the classification of the script are partly the problem I have moved the article to Alsószentmihály inscription and edited the text for terminology which makes it less bad. -- Evertype·✆ 08:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Unbelievable! You called a professor of Hungary's most prestigious university a fringe theorist, blocked him based on absolutely nothing, and deleted his articles with zero standing argument. I used to call the hungarian Wikipedia very unjust, because admins do what they want, but I have never seen something like this. What is going on here is the only reason for the decline in the number of editors, and its really frightening. Föld-lét (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response Absolutely no one has called anyone anything here. I'm afraid that your comment has veered from WikiPrinciple:Assume good faith. In response to your accusation, he was temporarily blocked for WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT, and his articles were deleted because their conclusions seemed to be a product of WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. There are legitimate concerns about the creation of articles to advance scholarly opinions that qualify as WP:FRINGE. This was done by an editor who created a number of these articles. That's all he is - an editor. He's not a respected scholar. He's not a professor. He's simply an editor, and his actions are absolutely reviewable by other editors, which I and the others in this conversation are. I nominated this article because it seemed to lack notability, and seemed to have been created to preserve zombie content that was the focus of existing Articles for Deletion. The fact that you seem to know a great deal about him is somewhat alarming, considering that editor's history of sock/meatpuppetry; however, if you have actual contributions to the substance of this AfD discussion, we will extend the courtesy of assuming good faith, as is policy and custom on Wikipedia. Vanisaac (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Lack of notability? Why? WP:FRINGE is no reason for deletion, WP:NOR does not stand. I think it's not me who should explain why this is not original research, but you should expalin why it is, given that it was your main reason for nominating these articles for deletion. Föld-lét (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is in fact a reason for deletion. Especially when the articles in question were not written as descriptions of the pseudoscience they are: they are written as though the "scripts" were properly and verifiably deciphered, which they are not. I have tried to suggest on one of the pages that Hosszú's transcription convention was not in accordance with standard linguistic practice. He ignored it, and insists on a weird faux-IPA transcription. The fact that he doesn't use standard linguistic notation is a sign that he doesn't know what he's doing. I and others have recognized this, and that's why the articles were deleted. -- Evertype·✆ 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is in fact no reason for deletion. There are no excluding circumstances for this. Your last two sentences are not reason for deletion at all. Föld-lét (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, fringe content is suppposed to be only mentioned in relation and proportion to non-fringe content. Given that the articles themselves were the fringe content, but that the subject matter did not merit notability guidelines as a fringe movement (eg moon landing conspiracies), that is actually a perfect reason for deletion. In order to remove the NOR content and balance the FRINGE, the most judicious approach is deletion. The existence of these theories may be appropriate in a section of Hungarian neo-nationalism, but they do not meet any sort of rigour for articles in WikiProject Writing Systems. Likewise, the current article seems to lack notability beyond this fringe community. There are thousands of artefacts with small samples of ancient writing on them, and unless they bring important insight to the history of a language or people, they generally are not accorded their own article. Vanisaac (talk • contribs) 19:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an article about a Khazarian Rovas inscription. This topic belongs to the paleography. It has no any ideological aspect. I did not write anything into this article, which belong to the nationalism. If you do not think so, than it would be nice to point it out. -Rovasscript (talk) 03:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep up here, most of that was a response to an accusation concerning the deletion of other articles. I still believe that this particular article does not meet notability guidelines. An artefact is not automatically notable unless it sheds light on a particular people, time, or activity. This inscription does not seem to meet that criteria. Vanisaac (talk) 07:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Compare, for instance, the Old English Franks casket. -- Evertype·✆ 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

 This article still contains no information on why this particular inscription has any more importance than any of a thousand other random inscriptions, giving it any sort of notablility justifying inclusion in Wikipedia. I still vote delete Vanisaac (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Current version appears adequately sourced and is no longer focused on a fringe theory. Edward321 (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as it still isn't notable and the "decipherment" is quite unlikely. -- Evertype·✆ 17:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article doesn't establish notability. It certainly exists but the refs are pulled from minor academic papers. Szzuk (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2011 (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.