Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iberian-Guanche inscriptions

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod, the reason was The term Iberian-Guanche inscriptions itself is a misnomer not used by epigraphists, rendering an article by that name obsolete. The content relies substantially on the pseudoscientific "findings" of an author not qualified in either linguistics or epigraphy. Cf. [1] for referees. I put it here for your consideration now. Tone 08:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Mainly because historically there are a lot of RS books drawing a connection between Iberian and Guanche, and the matter is open for real discussion. Your ibi-project cite, in fact, accepts that people in the past made such a connection. If you wish to dispute RS for an article, the RS/N board is the place to do it. Collect (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Collect. Edward321 (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Changed to Move and Rewrite. The article needs work, but it looks to be well-sourced. Most of the sources are offline, and not in English, so I'm assuming good faith, but this appears to merit an article. Cool3 (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The article looks well-sourced, but is only seemingly so. So do please bear with me if I go a little bit into detail: The only author to propose such inscriptions — even among those many whose works are used as references for the article, mind you! — is the geneticist Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, whose linguistic and epigraphic methodology is severely flawed. The Institutum Canarium [2], probably the academic spearhead on Canarian epigraphy, will confirm on query that there is no such thing as Ibero-Guanche inscriptions. Prof. Werner Pichler, one of its members (the one quoted in the article as the compiler of these inscriptions), does not consider any to be in the Iberian alphabet, which would have been the sole basis for Arnaiz-Villena's transcriptions (he's also the one in the above link [3] dismissing and slightly ridiculing Arnaiz-Villena's attempts at translation); the same is true for Renata Springer Bunk, another leading authority quoted in the article.

My suggestion was that Arnaiz-Villena's theories are more than suited for inclusion on his own page, but that a separate article titled "Iberian-Guanche Inscriptions", and somewhat misleadingly furnished with references to other epigraphic works, should be discouraged. Trigaranus (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• article is pure bs. The name of the valid topic behind this would be Libyco-Berber inscriptions. [4]. Delete, but create an article on the inscription corpus. Note that Libyco-Berber is presently a redirect. Remember to also delete the home-grown imagery that came with the article. --dab (𒁳) 19:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of creating another article seems reasonable. The article as a whole has some problems with neutral point of view, and possibly with original research. I am not a linguist or an expert on this topic in any way, but it would appear to be a simple fact that there are inscriptions found on the canary islands, and that these inscriptions have been the subject of scholarly debate. An article covering the topic in this manner seems most appropriate. Thus I have changed my vote to Move to a neutral title and rewrite as much as possible. Such a course of action would also naturally move this article out of the AfD process. Cool3 (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think dab and Cool3 both have a point, and it looks like a possible way out. As far as inscriptions from the Canarian Islands are concerned, the article in question should be Libyco-Berber inscriptions. There is an academic society, the Institutum Canarium, a brain trust of specialists in the field of Canarian epigraphy who have catalogued and edited all known inscriptions into a corpus. There is scholarly debate amongst epigraphists about the correct interpretation of these inscriptions, but within reasonable limits. It is a matter of unanimous consensus among specialists that the alphabets used are the Libyco-Berber script (currently a redirect) and the Latin alphabet, and that understandably they are not to be transcribed into the modern Basque language. The present article, on the other hand, is based essentially on Antonio Arnaiz-Villena, whose methods and results are the source of wry amusement among epigraphists, along with a certain measure of exasperation. There is virtually not a lot in it that could make for a decent foundation to the more appropriate article Libyco-Berber inscriptions. However, there are two very outspoken supporters of Arnaiz-Villena's theories, who have created this article and are now worried that they are being silenced. It is solely in order to act on their concerns that I think the theory should be included with the others under Antonio_Arnaiz-Villena#Iberian-Guanche_theory. Trigaranus (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Arnaiz-Villena is a master of ethno-linguistic BS, usually disguised within articles whose claims to be RS lie in his qualifications as a geneticist. In condensed form this is well suited to form a section on his page, and an article on the inscriptions could legitimately be created as dab says - but not with this title. Paul B (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I have done my best to improve the page :added ISBN of a book and where you can find it in the Canary Islands.Also,I have added scanners from the rocks where the inscriptions are.THEY ARE NOT LYBIC INSCRIPTIONS,they were named as "Latin" as stated in the page because they were not familiarized with Iberian inscriptions.They never called "Lybic" to these inscriptions.This is clear in the page and figures from both kind of iscriptions can be see :

Lybic and Iberian-Guanche (Latin) .Please,read it and go to the links.Even someboby non-familiarized with scripts will be able that the acussations form "Delet2" promoters are not true.

I do not think that Wikipedia will remove a good information because of insults or attacking one name,personally--Iberomesornix (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Were Trigaranus and Paul B the same executioners who started Arnaiz hunt years ago because an article about Palestinians?

Did Arnaiz made up the Iberian-Guanche inscriptions 2,000 years ago?--UrkoB (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)