Talk:Amulet MS 5236

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeAmulet MS 5236 was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
December 14, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 22, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Greek gold amulet MS 5236 was created by block printing as early as the 6th century BC?

Reliable sources?[edit]

This article appears to rely on two unpublished studies, both incompletely referenced. Can someone explain why they should be treated as reliable? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion in German Wikipedia[edit]

After a lengthy discussion the German wikipedia has decied to delete this article. Main reason was very douptful sources, mainly one "unpublished" document, which never will reach a peer-review as long it stays in this status. The second source was a private memo and it seems douptful if the author intended it for publication or if he still believed in into before his death. See: de:Wikipedia:Löschprüfung/Archiv/2010/Woche_48#Amulett_MS_5236_.28erl..2C_gel.C3.B6scht.29 --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What you call "doubtful" sources were actually written by international experts (see author links) and your claim that one of them "may not have believed in into before his death" is exactly one of those claims totally made up of out of thin air which made the German discussion such a mockery. A discussion which became in fact lenghty only because the deletion was first disapproved by an admin for a lack of real reasons. I freely acknowledge that peer-reviewed sources would be more preferable to the studies now cited, but trying to transplant the somehwat dishonest arguments from the German WP is in no way helpful in determing the real worth of the sources on which this article is based. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)