This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AerobicFox (talk | contribs) at 23:29, 14 December 2010 (→Federlandese (coin)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:29, 14 December 2010 by AerobicFox (talk | contribs) (→Federlandese (coin))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)