Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elder futhark script

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Almost all the information is duplicated on Runic alphabet, I think any missing content should be merged into there and a redirect set up. — OwenBlacker 11:37, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep. Valid subtopic of runic alphabet. And what does {{vfd}} have to do with a {{merge}} situation (if a merge is appropriate). [[User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup❞]] 12:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect: It's not just duplicated. It's triplicated, I believe, as futhark also contains the material. I also have some grumbling about the premise of it. Trying to say there is an original one, taking three or four scripts and claiming they were one, etc. is all unscholarly. Since Tolkein, a certain segment of the population has had too great an interest in this inscribed script, IMO. Anyway, just redirect. Geogre 13:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • It was the first attested script used to represent the direct ancestor of the English language we are using today, so in that sense it is notable historically and linguistically, Dungeons & Dragons geeks notwithstanding. That being said, there are only something like 200 inscriptions (all of them quite short, usually just one word) that have survived in this script to the present day. So, we really don't have much concrete information about it. Having that relatively small amount of information as a sub-topic on a larger rune article would be fine with me. The triplicated articles are a problem (Runic script, Runic alphabet and Elder futhark script; all three existed before I got to them), and I feel a merge and redirect of the three to a main article would be a good idea. Fire Star 14:48, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Eventually merge/re-organize, sorting out the details at the talk pages. -- Pjacobi 15:18, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Merge & redirect for now- someone may eventually want to split the topic up into subtopics, but right now these are redundant. It is important, and merits a sizable article (there's substantial scholarly interest). -FZ 17:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)