Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rovas Atlas


 * 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.

Rovas Atlas
The result was delete. Angr (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is one of a series of Original Research articles being promoted by the user who created this article. Note that the source documents include a new 2011 publication by Gábor Hosszú along with a proposal to encode the Old Hungarian script by the same author. The concept "Rovas Atlas" is not established in the literature, nor are the "Carpathian Rovas" and "Kazarian Rovas" fictions. -- Evertype·✆ 20:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See the very large number of similar edits by the user: -- Evertype·✆ 20:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Self-promotion of original research and nom's reasons. See also edits to the same series of articles by another account, . Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete -- promotional article and original research, presumably by Gábor Hosszú as the images from Gábor Hosszú's "Rovas Atlas" are licensed as "own work" by Rovasscript. BabelStone (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete -- appears to only be a self-promotional article about a work of original research. Vanisaac (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Restore -- Again: Not being aware of something does not mean its non-existence. The vandalist deleting actions are promoting the seriously erronous "Old Hungarian" and "Hungarian Runic" fictions of Michael Everson in order to push through his ideas in the Unicode standardization. All this actions are against the will of the user community and the user community will stand up for its intertest with the widest publicity. --Rovasinfo (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Rovasinfo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Response -- nominating an article for deletion is not vandalism - as per Wikipedia guidelines. There is a disagreement about whether the article is encyclopedic. See original thought, #3. Let me repeat, disagreement is not vandalism. I realize this is the most important thing possible, but you need to get some perspective Vanisaac (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As an attempt to use Wikipedia to promote own work. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as blatant nonsense. Check notability of a possible Gábor Hosszú bio article to accommodate this stuff. --dab (𒁳) 09:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm more inclined to take this article from an anthropology journal as an assessment of this invented script and associated invented history, than the publications which have been spammed by the author and his fellow enthusiasts. Extract:


 * "Hungarian rune-writing enthusiasts are a self-selecting group with a distinct nationalist ideology emphasizing autochthony and antiquity. They promote a national myth through popular cultural products, propaganda tracts, and even a semi-scholarly journal. Their social composition resembles those of other modern nationalist movements; they even have their own diaspora in North America. Hungarian rune-writers invent traditions and imagine communities..."
 * - Maxwell, Alexander. "Contemporary Hungarian Rune-Writing: Ideological Linguistic Nationalism within a Homogenous Nation", Anthropos, 99: 2004, pp. 161-175
 * Ironically, the movement itself is potentially notable enough for its own article, as long as its ideas are not presented as fact. Voceditenore (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The Maxwell article is very intersting indeed. Note please that the author of the Rovas Atlas article has blanked it himself and redirected it. I am goint to re-redirect it to Old Hungarian. Would an admin please permanently lock that? Thanks -- Evertype·✆ 10:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Articles shouldn't be blanked during an AfD (an admin has just restored it) or redirected. The AfD should run its course to record the verdict. I'd also recommend salting the titles if the decision is to delete. Voceditenore (talk) 11:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That quote above is obviously VERY NEUTRAL!!! And that is really the most delicious thing about Wikipedia, that I love the best: ***WE*** GET TO DECIDE WHATEVER POV 'NEUTRALITY' IS!!!   I'm sure Jimbo Wales would LOOOOVE IT! 173.67.230.112 (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC) — 173.67.230.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I wouldn't salt the titles, but rather redirect to Old Hungarian and lock. Or is that salting? -- Evertype·✆ 12:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Rovas Atlas" is result of a scientific work. If you understand the article, it is obvious that it has no any relation any nationalism. I refuse such accusations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovasscript (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 July 2011
 * Delete the Rovas Atlas, since it contains significant own scientific work. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:58, 1 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.