Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rovas Script Family

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. Angr (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rovas Script Family

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

This is another in the originator's attempt to create a rake of articles to support Original Research. There is only one Old Hungarian script; the Carpathian and Khazarian ones are pseudoscientific fictions. Again this is one of a suite of articles injected into the Wikipedia over the last fortnight. Evidently the idea is to give legitimacy to Gábor Hosszú's proposal to encode these scripts in Unicode. -- Evertype·✆ 20:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The rapid edits by the two editors involved came to my attention about 3 days ago and concerned me. I can't find evidence of notability, this just seems pov promotion. Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete Only Evertype is who came to my attention that is concerned me. Uncooperative, because instead of starting debate on the Discussion page, he simply nominated many articles for Deletion. Do not beleive to Evertype, who state: "pseudoscientific fiction". There are 10 years of research work published in the past decades, but not on the Wikipedia. Before deletion, read the references. If an accepted (!) theory is not known outside in Hungary, that is terra incognita for English speaking world. Please follow Wikipedia NPOV standards, and leave time for discussion and uploading related materials. Rovosaman (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovosaman (talk • contribs) 11:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Response: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carpathian_Basin_Rovas and click on Find Sources. You will get 41 hits all of which are based on the same self-published research. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khazarian_Rovas and click on Find Sources. You will get 34 hits, all of which are based on the same self-published research. From a scientific standpoint, neither Revised proposal for encoding the Khazarian Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS nor Revised proposal for encoding the Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the SMP of the UCS offer any credible evidence for "accepting" the "theory" that either the "Carpathian Basin" or "Khazarian" "scripts" existed. From the standpoint of the Wikipedia, neither is in any way notable. From the standpoint of the history of writing systems, my opinion is that they are either fictions, devised in order to give a pretended antiquity to Old Hungarian, or they are just the result of inadequate scholarship. -- Evertype·✆ 11:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- appears to only be a self-promotional article about a work of original research. Vanisaac (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop vandalism The deleting commando will not mute opinions and facts. --Rovasinfo (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Rovasinfo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Comment If you don't understand why people trained in historical linguistics consider the way you "cobbled together" the "Khazarian" script out of totally disconnected glyphs from totally disconnected places and times to be an act of fiction, then perhaps it is understandable why you don't understand that such fictions are pseudo-scientific. But that doesn't mean that attacking people trained in historical linguistics for dismissing such claims makes your claims any stronger. Calling something a fact does not make it a fact. -- Evertype·✆ 08:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • nobody is trying to "mute" you. You are free to go to blogger.com, create a blog and tell the world all about your views. The internet is free for all. But this is en.wikipedia.org, not "the internet", and we are trying to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 15:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice, this is just WP:FRINGE nationalist crankery. Then create protected redirects to the existing Old Hungarian script (which is a valid topic, but which needs to be watched closely for additions of cranky nationalist bullshit). --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article Rovas Script Family does not contain any nationalist statement. Please, reconsider your judgement. I wrote the clear majority of this article and I continue its improvement. If there is any imperfection in this article, please, let me know. The fourth pillar of the Wikipedia is the Co-operation_and_civility, I am sure that all of us are going to follow it. Thanks for reviewing this article. Rovasscript (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      read WP:FRINGE. "Rovas Scripts" is not a topic in its own right, it is simply what the Old Hungarian script is called in Hungarian patriot pseudo-scholarship. Of course you can find scholarly literature on the topic. Nobody ever disputed that this script exists. It is discussed at Old Hungarian script. Now stop creating "Rovas" articles all over the place and contribute to the main article if you have anything worthwhile to add.
      Would Dr. Gábor Hosszú stand up please? We know you are into the Rovas script. That's a good thing per se, and you could contribute to Wikipedia with your background knowledge, if you didn't insist on touting your own speculative amateur publications. --dab (𒁳) 08:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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) 09:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why you cite an article, which is totally unrelated to my works? My work is building these Rovas-related Wikipedia articles based on acknowledged scholars. Please, re-consider your position. Thanks. -Rovasscript (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete since this article collects valuable scientific results of officially acknowledged scholars. The existence of the Khazarian Rovas and Carpathian Basin Rovas inscriptions is a well-known fact in the Paleography. Please, consider that this article does not violate any rule of the Wikipedia. Thanks. -Rovasscript (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2011 (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.