Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian scripts

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.

Hungarian scripts

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

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

This article is part of the original poster's campaign to try to get Original Research into the Wikipedia. There is no Hungarian Latin-based script: there is jus tHungarian orthography to which that link resolves. There is no Szekely-Hungarian_Rovas script: this just resolves to Old Hungarian, as it should. And there is no Carpathian_Basin_Rovas; this is a modern Original Research fantasy as the "script" in question is linguistically untenable. It's difficult to know how to file an AfD for "pseudoscience" but that's what we've got here. -- Evertype·✆ 20:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a strong private opinion. Please consult linguistic literature before any comment. At the Unicode only Mr Everson and on the Wikipedia only Evertype is propagating out-dated viewpoints. I suppose they are same persons. Please see Wikipedia NPOV article, and check your statements concerning "original work". Do not destroy articles, please use Discussion pages at each articles, any comment, viewpoint can be debated on these pages. The Deletion Request as first step is not acceptable, during the uploading process. Rovosaman (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovosaman (talk • contribs) 10:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion of original research and nom's reasons. See also edits to the same series of articles by another account, Rovosaman (talk · contribs). Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The AfD template on this and related articles was removed by the articles' creator, I've replaced them. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relations of the Szekely-Hungarian Rovas the Carpathian Basin Rovas and the Khazarian Rovas are supported several scholars; some of them are cited in the related Wikipedia articles. Rovasscript (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete While much of the content appears to be self-promotional original research, there are, unambiguously, a modern Latin and ancient Runiform Hungarian scripts, and the relation of these two scripts is appropriate encyclopedic content. The content needs to be significantly edited to reflect accepted scholarship - specifically removing the controversial disunification of runiform scripts. As of right now, I believe that this article should contain references to Hungarian Latin and Old Hungarian (Hungarian "Runic") and be tagged as a stub Vanisaac (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All the article does is say that Hungarian has been written in Old Hungarian and in Latin script. The article on Hungarian orthography and Hungarian language can do that. There's no reason for this article to exist. -- Evertype·✆ 22:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response As I said, I believe that this article, as it currently exists, only touches on what could be an comparison of the different Hungarian writing systems. Yes, all the article currently says is that Hungarian has been written in Old Hungarian and Latin. That's why I believe it is a stub. The question is whether this article should be summarily deleted. Unlike the multitude of original research, self-promotional articles on controversial Runiform classifications, I believe this one has promise. Vanisaac (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response The normal procedure is for such material to stay on the pages where it is relevant until and unless the relevant sections grow long enough to merit an article of their own. -- Evertype·✆ 23:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response Are you, therefore, changing your vote to Merge? Like I said, I think this is a term that encompasses a distinct area of scholarship - comparison of the historical written forms of Hungarian - but that some of its current content strays into WP:FRINGE. The fact that this content, last I looked, was not contained in the article on the Hungarian orthography, indicates that it is out of scope for that article. What article would you merge the content with? I'd rather have a stub that shows up on my radar, especially given the controversial/fringe nationalistic attention that the content receives, than have to look over every edit of articles on the Hungarian language.Vanisaac (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete or else just blank, and recreate as a disambiguation page between Hungarian alphabet and Old Hungarian script. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, Van, I'm not changing my vote to "Merge". I don't want to see a page called "Irish scripts" that contains Ogham and Latin script and Gaelic script either. Or a "Serbian scripts" page that has Latin, Cyrillic, and Glagolitic. The rationale for creation of the "Hungarian scripts" page was the blatant attempt to shore up dodgy personal research by spamming the Wikipedia with it. -- Evertype·✆ 23:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which is what I'm saying. You believe that the non-controversial information should be merged into another article. That's a preference for merge, not delete, no? Vanisaac (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Hungarian orthography article mentions both Latin and Old Hungarian there is no need to do anything. There is, of course, no Carpathian Basin script, so that has no place anywhere. Note that I have edited the article here to delete fictions. -- Evertype·✆ 23:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reconstructed the entry for Carpathian Basin Rovas script in the article Hungarian scripts, since it did exist. There is consensus about this fact in the Hungarian science. However, I included an explicit remark into the article, that the existence of this script is debated. I think, this fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. I also did not modify the "Old Hungarian" term in the page (what was inserted recently), albeit my opinion did not change. However, I inserted a note that the Hungarian Standards Institution does not support this term. I think this is tolerable for everybody. In order to clarify some aspects of the Hungarian orthography, I created a date line. -- Rovasscript (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "it did exist" does not magically make it exist. No evidence has been given to show that it exists, just a handful of glyphs from different times and places, and IPA transcriptions (evidently to give the feel of real science) instead of ordinary orthographic transliterations. There is nothing plausible here. -- Evertype·✆ 08:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once the WP:Fringe material which has been spammed to multiple articles is removed, there's nothing to merge. 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) 09:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is deleting the Rovas articles, but your support it with an article, which is independent from the Rovas articles. Please, read the texts that I edited: there is not any nationalist or similar remark in them. I try to serve the science.

I created four Rovas articles. But these articles does not contain any reference to my works. These are well-known relics, it is reasonable to break a certain content into more than one articles. I trust in your objectivity. -Rovasscript (talk) 11:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm basing my "delete" on the preceding arguments and evidence from the multiple editors who have also !voted "delete". The Maxwell article is just icing on the cake, and goes some way to explaining this onslaught. Incidentally, you have created nine articles on Rovas Script, not four, three of them in the last 24 hours. You may have removed your work as references from them but you also left in the claims based on it without referencing them. And you continue to cite yourself in Szarvas Rovas inscription which you created just yesterday. Voceditenore (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help against vandalism My last edits in the article Hungarian scripts was reverted by a user. However, This section was supported by third party references and its content was important for the article. -Rovasscript (talk) 12:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't keep trying to insert nationalistic pseudo-science into the Wikipedia, you wouldn't have so much trouble with people disagreeing with your edits. There is plenty of good authentic material on Old Hungarian. It is a pity we cannot agree to improve the articles there. But no, you have to keep on with this Carpathian Basin nonsense. And then you cry "vandal" when someone reverts. Tsk. -- Evertype·✆ 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self promotion, OR, and all the other problems noted above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete the existence of the Rovas scripts besides the Hungarian orthography is a well-known fact in Hungary. There is not any scholar, who debates this. Consequently, an article, which compare them is useful. I emphasize that this article fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 15:24, 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.