Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bicholim conflict


 * 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. A snow job for a very devious hoax. Kudos to ShelfSkewed for doing the digging that disproved this dissertation. The Bushranger One ping only 17:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Bicholim conflict

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After careful consideration and some research, I have come to the conclusion that this article is a hoax—a clever and elaborate hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. An online search for "Bicholim conflict" or for many of the article's purported sources produces only results that can be traced back to the article itself. Take, for example, one of the article's major sources: Thompson, Mark, Mistrust between states, Oxford University Press, London 1996. No record at WorldCat. No mention at the OUP site. No used listings at Alibris or ABE. I can find no evidence anywhere that this book exists. Not being able to find any trace of an OUP book published within, say, the past 40 years? Ridiculous. If this book exists, then the original author of this WP article owns the only copy. I was similarly unsuccessful in tracking down Srinivasan Vasantakulan's Bharatiya Struggles (1000 AD – 1700 AD) (shown with an ISBN for a Swedish children's book) or David D'Souza's Roots of conflict in Portuguese Goa (also with an erroneous and unlikely ISBN). In addition, consider the comment by another editor on the article's talk page concerning the problems with the dates in the article. If I'm wrong about this, I'll look like a right idiot, but there are too many troubling things about this article to ignore. Shelf Skewed  Talk  16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Shelf Skewed   Talk  17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Shelf Skewed   Talk  17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.  Shelf Skewed   Talk  17:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Congratulations must go to ShelfSkewed for his research here. In addition to the sources consulted by him I have cross-checked with Copac which is the primary UK academic index, and the only cited books which appear to exist are the two 19th century publications, that by Rule on the Inquisition and the 1886 Imperial Gazetteer, neither of which is claimed in the article to contain reference to the supposed conflict itself. One incorrect citation is par for published academic work, but for none of the supporting material to be traceable is fatal in the absense of any other evidence for the events described. --AJHingston (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete --- I would have beleived it, but the alleged sources are clearly a WP:HOAX, which makes me think the article is too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: per the brilliant research above, and purge the creator's edits on other pages, if any. Well-presented hoaxes are the most malicious. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 18:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See also the concerns raised at Featured article candidates/Bicholim conflict/archive1, particularly those raised about the reliability of Bharatiya Conflicts, should it exist. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Following on from the excellent nomination statement, I searched for "Bharatiya Struggles" in the online catalogs of the National Library of India, British Libary and Library of Congress and none of these institutions had a record for such a book. As such, this appears to be a hoax. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. What a brilliant nomination. I have also not traced the relevant references and the historical chronology is wrong. If either Shivaji or the Maratha Empire were involved then 1640-41 is too early and too many dates are quoted in the article for a typo. I see the article creator linked to the article from History of Goa, here. This edit has not been questioned or reverted but the article has few watchers. However, there is no mention at Shivaji (and probably never has been) though a lot of edit warring was going on in that article over a relevant period in the later part of 2007. Presuming it is a hoax, what an elaborate one. Thincat (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. It certainly does look suspicious. The editor who created the article has not done a lot of editing outside of that article and has not edited since 2007. Was it one of those journalistic tests? It is also galling that it is ranked as GA. I will see if we can get it speedily deleted but unfortunately the damage is done. It is mirrored and cached all over the internet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've declined the speedy delete- since it hasn't been detected for so long, it's obviously not a blatant or an obvious hoax, so it isn't eligible for G3. I'm sure it'll be deleted after this AfD though.--Slon02 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2012 (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.

Later comments
Later comment moved down from Archived discussion. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Note A lesson well learned. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, though, it seems the Daily Mail ( which is itself no stranger  to publishing stories of dubious provenance (here, para 5) wasn't the first to break the story. The Daily Dot, PC World, and Yahoo News all had the story before the Mail did. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)