I will accept this, because I feel like the codex in question is almost certainly notable. However, the sources cited establish this, at best, indirectly: refs 1 and 2 (which are in any case the same) as well as 4 seem to be reviews of books commenting on / analysing the codex, and while those books would contribute to the notability of the codex, reviews thereof are once more removed from the subject. Meanwhile ref 5 is merely a digital copy of the codex, which does nothing to establish notability. Ref 3 is probably the best of the lot, but alone not sufficient. All that being said, I will accept this, because the existence of the reviews mentioned implies notability, even if it hasn't been properly demonstrated here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- It's actually not "a codex" - you'll notice the article contains information on three different codices at least. The text is certainly notable, but that's not quite what this article is about. -- asilvering (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Also, I salute you for the wiktionary attempt, but I think this is an Italian-to-English error for "decorated with miniatures". Though it is true that the image in the article is also red. -- asilvering (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
