Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlantida (ancient city)


 * 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. The argument that the sourcing (from 1930!) is too thin to meet WP:V for this sort of topic is compelling.  Sandstein  10:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Atlantida (ancient city)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was the subject of an AP article in 1930. That article can be found at. Other than that I can find virtually no sources, RS or otherwise. The second paragraph has no sources about the subject, only about rubber producing. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I came across a couple of other brief mentions of the Portuguese Atlántida myth, but nothing that could be used to cite or flesh out the article beyond mentioning that such a myth exists. This sparse material, even if something reliable can be produced to support what is there, would better be added into the Atlantis section of the Atlantis article. &bull; Astynax talk 21:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * delete Unless it is notable as a hoax -- If this is not a 1930 hoax, there ought to be some other source on the subject than two newspaper articles. If someone really found Phoenician hieroglyphics in America, it would be an outstandingly important find, and I would have expected more research to have followed, but we apparently have none.  There is another problem: the Phoenicians used an alphabetic script, which is among the ancestors of the Greek and Latin ones.  I conclude that this is the 1930 equivalent of WP:OR.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2014 (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.