Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voden inscription

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voden inscription

Voden inscription (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unsourced nonsense based on nationalistic sites such as: [1] [2] •NikoSilver• 11:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - it appears to be a hoax, see the 92 ghits. Also not verifiable since most ghits are emails or usenet posts. MER-C 11:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. Robin Johnson (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Keep (and cleanup) if verification at least from reliable press sources can be found while this AfD is running. By verification, I mean verifying that it exists and that it was analysed by experts. If it's a forgery, it's still an interesting one and may deserve an article. Fut.Perf. ☼
    • Comment I will withdraw nomination when such sources are included, and when the forgery issue becomes clear in the text. In fact, if these two conditions are met, and someone else tries to AfD this, I'll vote 'strong keep'. •NikoSilver• 13:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable per Future perfect and Wikipeida is not a soapbox. If verfication of actual existence, keep without propaganda-esque language and tone. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite as notable Belgian nationalist hoax. :-) -Toptomcat 15:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It was an interesting article. I couldn't tell from the article why it might be considered a hoax.--Mike 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Can I please ask people to reconsider their votes. I don't think there's been a single archaeological find that someone hasn't considered a fake. Moreover some notable fakes are in themselves very important because they are very good indicators of cultural values such as the jesus box (the osary of the brother of jesus I think).
I spend a lot of time looking at inscriptions that may or may not be fakes and if all of them got deleted I'd have nothing to work on! I think this web site gives the other side of the coin:[3] without a great deal of research I can't verify whether the actual item is genuine, but what is very clear is that an object exists and that this is a real subject. Clearly it must be reported in a neutral way - and that is a real concern with the article (especially given recent posts) but not a reason (as yet to delete)--Mike 00:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Without verification this could damage wikipedia's reputation, that is why we require verification. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there an inscription called the "voden inscription" (there's a picture)? If there is whether or not it is genuine, the next question is whether it is notable, if it has articles written about it then it prossibly is.
  1. The Wiki-article is not a hoax, the inscription may be, but the Wiki-article isn't!
  2. It isn't unverifiable - there's a picture, the wiki-article is verificable, it is the item that is difficult to verify and as far as I'm aware Wikipedia doesn't have the power to delete it! (See WP:GOD)
  3. So long as the article properly tags that some consider it a fake, it will not damage Wikipedia's reputation.
The only rational I can see for deleting is that it is not notable enough - and the only comment on that seems to say it is!--Mike 20:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you will find Wikipedia:Verifiability pertenent to this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I found just one press clipping online that seems to verify that this item exists and was taken to Greece over objections from the Bulgarian curator of a museum, but no information about the allegations of forgery, claims of historical significance, etc. Since the most recent events regarding this item happened in 1997, someone may have to go to the library to find good sources. It appears that most of the websites that mention this item for nationalistic purposes have relied on very sketchy sources and when you follow their references you find only a couple of tripod pages which no longer exist. None of them seem to have actually seen the two newspaper articles which they mention in their websites. Also I see a red flag when the creator of this article claims to have made the photograph provided with the article. Really? Who is this person who claims to have personally been present with the item in question, which has been kept under lock and key by government authorities for nine years? I don't even feel confident that "Voden inscription" is the appropriate name for this item, so I can't even support the idea of making this a stub. Ecyclopedic content must be verifiable. This is not. Delete per HighInBC OfficeGirl 20:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Xdenizen 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep undoubtelly item exists, regarding it's authenticity seek opinion from experts having nutreal point of view excluding state archaelogists-inscriptionists from Greece, Bulgaria (as Dr Bozhidar Dimitrov) and Republic of Macedonia.If genuine reveals unkown historical facts of great impact in Balkan history as: 1)Tsar Samuel was crowned by pope Gregory V before 989 A.D.and not in 997 after Tsar Roman of Bulgaria's death, as Dr. Dimitrov holds, 2) His official title was Tsar of Bulgars and Romans, 3)In 10th c. Byzantine capital was considered residence of Great Evil (Satan), 4)Samuel's state was extending from Serbia to whole Greece,5)On 989 AD Voden, present day Edessa, was the Bulgarian capital, 6)Verifies Bogomils movement participation in Samuel's Empire via dark historic figures as Jeremiah from Melnik probably founder of Bogomilism and Gabriel the Bulgarian bishop of Moglen or Muglen province and ,7)Reveals that Tarnovo is Samuel's birthplace, 8)Confirms 18th c. sources that Samuel's father was Shishman Han of Tarnovo (present day Great Tarnovo) and 9)Clarifies Bulgarian character of Samuel's state. Compare Bitola inscription. Old Slavonic inscriptions of 10th - 12th c. are extremely rare, fewer than 10. Bost 09.33, 8 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.58.248 (talk • contribs) 07:35, November 8, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless/until authenticity confirmed (at least to over 50%) and material similar to Bost's is included to allow non-experts to know why this inscription is so critical. --- Simon Cursitor 08:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep until Greek authorities release confiscated inscription free to publicity for authenticity test performed by indepedent foreign experts.Why Greek ministry of culture keep it in secrecy for nine years? It's obvious that some guys in Balkans favour the hoax aspect for ever avoiding archaelogical confirmation.Tamin 22.41, November,8 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.75.11.51 (talk • contribs) 22:00, November 8, 2006 (UTC) - who also corrected the comment of "Bost" above [4]
  • Delete - While the argument is potentially interesting as that of a 19th century forgery, unfortunately no decent source appears to treat the subject, judging by the search I made on the web.--Aldux 13:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is a notable hoax. I couldn't find much references about it, but I couldn't for Bitola inscription either. It appears that texts about various inscriptions aren't too popular on the Internet, but that doesn't make them non-notable. Nikola 15:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep strongly -Inscription's striking importance caused the forgery theory propagated by a Bulgarian historian who never saw this item. Who else can persuasivelly align to this? No one until Greek authorities deliver this incarcerated item free to international academic community for authentification. Every inscription is considered primary source of history and prevail to posterior ones-- Bost 08:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.203.116.222 (talk • contribs)
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.