Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aiud object


 * 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 merge to Out-of-place artefact. (non-admin closure) — Yashtalk stalk 17:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Aiud object

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources given, and I cannot find anything on Google Books, even though this was supposedly discovered four decades ago. Total Google hits are 333. Utterly non-notable and seriously dodgy. Slashme (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Very few references and most of them are conspiracy bloggers or debunkers. Not much in the way of reliable references.Glendoremus (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic   Nightfury  11:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  11:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.  Nördic   Nightfury  11:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. The current sources are terrible but these "out-of-place artefacts" often are notable. "Aiud object" is a translation and doesn't seem to be a good search term; probably most of the coverage is in Romanian (obiectul de la Aiud or calcaiul de la Aiud). But I'm having trouble sifting out reliable sources from the conspiracy theorist blogs since I'm relying on Google Translate. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is some noise on some pseudoscientific sites in Romanian. Many call it "Călcâiul de la Aiud" ("The heel of Aiud", from the impression some conspiracy theorists have that it's some kind of heel of some kind of anthropomorphic robot). Some reliable media sources that say something about it are this one, which mostly states that the item attracted no interest from specialists, only from the general public, and this one which cites a 1983 book that bases the mistery on the author's evaluation that the part is too heavily oxidized to have been produced in the past century. This semi-reliable site suggests that the item is actually a part of the landing gear mechanism of a WWII-era Messerschmitt Me 262 airplane.- Andrei (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to out-of-place artefact. No independent notability, but it is an example of how such "paranormal" fringe topics are discussed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing in the story (or even the story itself) is verifiable enough to merge into any article. Reliable sources have totally ignored these fantastic claims. The only sources are bloggers, out-of-print Romanian UFO magazines, and rumor-mongers like the Daily Mail. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to out-of-place artefact, picking up a few RS mentions (well they are RS at this time), but not really finding anything that really established notability.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Out-of-place artifact. As a long time (if former) true believer, I don't accept that I would have never heard of this thing before now, yet simultaneously accept that it's been notable this whole time. The sources used in the article do nothing to contradict me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Out-of-place artifact. I was going to vote Delete per LuckyLouie, because I thought Out-of-place artifact was for bona fide "artifacts of historical, archaeological, or paleontological interest found in an unusual context", as stated in the first sentence of that article. But reading on, I realized that the use of the term "is largely confined to cryptozoologists, proponents of ancient astronaut theories, Young Earth creationists, and paranormal enthusiasts." And indeed, the long list, which includes the Aiud object, contains mainly ridiculous claims, hoaxes, a 1920s spark plug erroneously dated as prehistoric, etc etc. The Aiud object fits right in. And I believe it's both encyclopedic and useful to have a list of this stuff, with some commentary on each, as the credulous may be enlightened thereby. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Oh, I totally agree, notable fringe nonsense deserves to be covered. Just can't find any non-fringe/non-sensational sources to cite from. For example, if as someone suggested, text is sourced to the UK Express the description of the Aiud artifact included in Out-of-place artifact would describe how this "mystery wedge" has "experts stunned by 250,000-year-old aluminium"? - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Mystery wedge, LOL. I'm stunned too, even without being an expert. Bishonen &#124; talk 22:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC).
 * Yep, we say what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And the UK Express source uncritically states stuff like "a piece of manufactured aluminium has been unearthed which dates back 250,000 years". Which is a WP:REDFLAG claim, so it certainly won't be going into our WP article as fact. If there's no other reliable source, I guess we're stuck with the Express? Just slap "allegedly" and "claimed" all over the place? - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Out-of-place artifact, per reasons already stated. DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  17:10, 10 March 2017 (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.