Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 17:15, 29 December 2024

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Federlandese (coin)

Federlandese (coin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This article is a hoax. A google search returns only items that directly or indirectly came from this Misplaced Pages article. Had the coin been real, it would have been a highly notable subject. Alfons Åberg (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, I found this book on Goths that mentions the Federlandese in it's synopsis. Besides, this is clearly not an "obvious hoax", let's not punish people who may have obscure knowledge of coins by preemptively deleting their articles.AerobicFox (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I renew my objection. Although I can see how the word "Federlandese" may not receive any other results but it's German equivalents "fædreland", "fædrelandet", and "fædrelande" all do receive many results. It's not too hard of a stretch to imagine Federlandese just being a poor English translation attempting to avoid using the "æ" character.

    Nonetheless, without the user commenting back I think the below evidence pointed out fairly adds too much questionability to this article for it to be kept without references. AerobicFox (talk) 23:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

    • "Fædreland" and equivalents in other Germanic languages simply means fatherland, so it doesn't contribute to the reliability of the information in the article. Alfons Åberg (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. No sources. The book above is a machine print of Misplaced Pages articles. Article is likely a hoax. Kaldari (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • There's literally zero reason to assume this is a hoax and not just a poorly sourced article on an obscure subject.AerobicFox (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well besides the fact that there are no sources on the web or in Google Books mentioning this coin, the article and photo were both contributed by a user with zero other edits (but who is somehow completely familiar with Misplaced Pages article-writing conventions). That's plenty suspicious enough for me. If sources turn up later, the article can easily be recreated. Kaldari (talk) 22:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Had this "coin" been real, it would have pre-dated the oldest known Scandinavian coins by perhaps ~800 years, so we would have heard of it elsewhere. Also, people in Scandinavia didn't have a monetary economy 2100 years ago. Alfons Åberg (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment That link's not working for me. Yes it is, now. Only mentions the word, not the coin. The article was created by someone who set up a userpage detailing their languages in one go, created this article (also in one go) and then disappeared. (I am assuming they didn't create anything else subsequently deleted, as their talk page was created today by Ten Pound Hammer - or an otter - and so there have been no warnings.) I would be interested to hear from Defroll77 as to their source of info, and where they photographed this coin. It is listed as 'own work' in the picture info. I would also like anyone to point out the runes on the coin. Also, I quote from Runic alphabet, "The earliest runic inscriptions date from around AD 150", which is about 250 years after this alleged Gothic coin. I can't see anything resembling the Elder Futhark or Old Italic scripts there. Not in enough quantity to spell out the coin's name. Another point is that at the period in question, the Goths were probably still on ring money - and their coins when produced later were imitations of Roman ones. This coin reminds me of something, but I couldn't say what. Referring to "obscure knowledge of coins", I would say this user's knowledge is so obscure as to constitute original research. One last thing - I would not normally quote Yahoo! Answers, but I found this: Q "What is "Books LLC"? Publisher? I have noticed they have compiled some articles from Misplaced Pages and have published them as books. Can anybody do the same thing?" I think we can say goodbye to that source as showing anything more than commercial mirroring... Peridon (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You can always look at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Books, LLC, or User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources#Misplaced Pages mirrors, instead. Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment again I am very inclined to think this is a hoax - and one of the best I've come across so far. As a hoax, I'd give it 9/10. The dating is wrong, and the 'own work' picture lets it down too. Peridon (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. For the image at least: if you take a closer look on the "two" coins you will see that this is one coin (or whatever), mirrored, only the inner part is edited. At the outer part all is identically, all shapes, all damages, all rust. So the image at least isnt real. For the article it is quite obvious that this is a hoax. E.g. the claim of coining in northern europe in 1st century BC can not fly. A vague suspicion is the it.wp connection of our user Defroll77. The only other hit for that Fedelandese thing leads to a troll image in it.wp added by a user Cam22 with similar editing pattern short before on November 25 2009 (that image is a copyvio too). --Martin H. (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out though, the "two coins" are actually just supposed to be one coin, front and back. That's why they're the same shape...AerobicFox (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed Martin H.s point. You could tell from the two images that they were originally one and the same image. That image had then been mirrored in photoshop, after which the obverse and reverse design features had been added, also in photoshop (or something similar). Alfons Åberg (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, at least one side of the coin is not existant, its only a mirrored and edited variant of the other side. Supposably the back side is fake, it contains a Langnese heart logo and a smily face. --Martin H. (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Ok, thats funny now. Cam22 added the Federlandese troll image. 93.48.97.181 added it in it.wp. 93.48.97.181 also edited the article nds-nl:Pigazzano, that article history here in en.wp, Pigazzano, leads us to an deleted image, deleted on Commons because of commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Federlandia. Obviously there already was some crosswiki vandalism with hoax articles resolved. This is only a comeback. --Martin H. (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Deleted the image since it is obviously a fake, and thus out of scope. Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete so many gross historical inaccuracies that this qualifies as an obvious hoax. In fact I wonder why the "speedy" was removed from this article (and am even more surprised by the "rescue" tag). But then again, I only became aware of this after the image was deleted, so I can't say whether the picture may possibly have made the hoax more believable as I haven't seen it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Peridon made a good case for this being an obvious hoax. You can't have a coin that uses writing that wasn't invented until centuries after it was made. Dream Focus 18:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment The hoax is obvious to some, but not others. I've unspeedied more than one article tagged as hoax by adding refs to show it was real (and ended up referencing a Norwegian article in one case - I went there for refs, they hadn't got any, so I found one or two). I would be unlikely to spot a hoax concerning American football (if it isn't all one anyway...), or Turkish politics. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Me as well, but that is also why I refrain from unspeedying articles on those subjects, I know I am not qualified to make that call. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As to the picture making it more believable - yes, it did. It must have done. This article has been on here for 12 months. Only when it was looked at closely did it fail. I've seen real subjects that at first sight looked much more hoax-like than this - Bobble-head doll syndrome was one that sounded fake from the word go. But it wasn't. What I immediately didn't like about the coin was the lack of visibility of the claimed runes and the presence of a Mr Chad-like face (see Kilroy was here. And others obviously didn't like it either... But only after the nominator had brought it to our attention. (I must have missed its appearance - I patrol New Accounts - but with it being a single edit creation, that's very possible.) Peridon (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Delete unless some one can provide a WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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.