Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homokmégy-Halom 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 delete. Nobody is convinced that this is a notable artefact, apart from "Rovasscript", whose username indicates a possible conflict of interest. Sandstein 06:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homokmégy-Halom Rovas inscription

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

Notability and content currently under other deletion discussion Vanisaac (talk) 10:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a fringe theory content fork. See Wikipedia: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) 11:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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) 10:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alensha's arguments in the Wikipedia: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) 08:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 18:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the term "Rovas" and the classification of the script are partly the problem I have moved the article to Homokmégy-Halom inscription and edited the text for terminology which makes it less bad. -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still have seen nothing which indicates why this particular artefact is notable in any way. There are literally thousands of artefacts that have small inscriptions on them, and very few are appropriate for Wikipedia, as they do not represent an important source of information on a culture or practice. I still vote for delete. Vanisaac (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it still isn't notable and the "decipherment" is quite unlikely. -- Evertype·✆ 08:40, 14 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.