Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkic ideograms

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. — Cirt (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkic ideograms

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

This is part of a range of new articles by the original poster which are steeped in Original Research and do not reflect scholarly consensus on the writing systems (or fictions) in question. The content of this article, if it had any validity, would belong at Old Turkic script. -- Evertype·✆ 20:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be mostly original research. As these so-called "Turkic ideograms" are identical to Old Turkic letters, any discussion of them, based on reliable sources, should be moved to Old Turkic script. BabelStone (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant WP:FRINGE nonsense. If this Gábor Hosszú has any notability as a crank author, create an article on the person. --dab (𒁳) 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: this article is based on the well-known facts. It collects the results of some scholars. These scholars have consensus that the Turkic ideograms have independent origin from the Aramaic script. There is not any new thing in this article. The value is that these results are collected into one article. Please, reconsider your position and do not delete this article. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Babelstone is right. -- Evertype·✆ 15:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the Turkic ideograms are in the Old Turkic script. It is correct. However, the are Turkic ideograms survived also in the Rovas scripts. This article collects the known results of researching the Turkic ideograms. All the relics of the Old Turkic script are from the 8th and 9th centuries. However, the Turkic ideograms are obviously earlier. The Turkic ideograms are sharply different from the majority of the Old Turkic letters, which are Aramaic-descendants. Consequently, this article collect valuable information. I emphasize: this article fulfill the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Babelstone is still right. -- Evertype·✆ 17:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FRINGE. Vanisaac (talk) 08:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BabelStone. This article was essentially created here as a coatrack for the slew of other articles by the same editor relating to his dubious fringe research (and movement). Of the original 9 created, 5 have already been deleted via AfD. In addition to this one, 3 others are currently at AfD. Voceditenore (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article (either its previous version, or its current version) contained valuable information about the titled topic. I simply removed the Carpathian Basin Rovas and Khazarian Rovas related remarks in order to avoid its deletion. However, what happen here is not ensuring the quality of the Wikipedia, but a completely different thing. I have no illusion: it will be deleted, despite of the fact that this contains only independent information with controllable references. This page fulfills the requirements of the Wikipedia. -Rovasscript (talk) 16:57, 2 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 partly the same authors are referred in the both articles. However, in this article, there are several Russian authors, as well. -Rovasscript (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The content of this article is not a theory. It is simply a collection of the well-known Turkic ideograms, which survived in the Old Turkic script and in the Szekely-Hungarian Rovas script. The article cannot tell the origin of the Turkic ideograms, since it is unknown. The reason of keeping this article individually is that only a small part of the Old Turkic symbols are non-Aramaic origin (these the ideograms); moreover, there are two Szekely-Hungarian symbols, which are also Turkic ideograms-based. Anyway, in the Carpathian Basin Rovas there are three and in the Khazarian Rovas there are four symbols, which can be identified as Turkic ideograms. If you are interested in it, you can see here: [[1]] -Rovasscript (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this article is not an alternative of the Old Turkic script. It simply focuses the Turkic ideograms, and their survival in different scripts. From the beginning, this article contained references to the article Old Turkic script. -Rovasscript (talk) 14:27, 3 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.