Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandenburg stone


 * 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The result was speedy keep per criterion 1—nomination withdrawn by nominator with no opinions advocating deletion having been offered. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Brandenburg stone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is another "New World inscription which proves precolumbian Old World contact". The issue in this case is that there is next to nothing about it: there are credulous reports from a public library and two local newspapers, a passing reference in a work talking about an even more obscure fringe theory, and an entry in a book on regional Forteana. There is also a self-published website whose research on the matter, as we have been able to confirm, shows that much of what is said in the other sources is untrue or misrepresented. For example, the text was supposedly translated by two "professional historians," who are in fact nothing of the kind, but in reality are also fringe researchers. So the upshot is that the article we have is a bit of original research which we put together to sort out the bank of unreliable sources we have to work with. The situation is similar to that of Kobrin Bible, whose final version was a bit of OR I cobbled together to deal with the several credulous sources and one skeptical site which we had to work with (seeArticles for deletion/Kolbrin Bible (2nd nomination). Mangoe (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Original research" has a very specific definition on wikipedia.  The "original" part means strictly "original to a wikipedian".  That is, some research that the wikipedian did on his own, and came up with on his own, that can't be found anywhere else.  If the wikipedian got it from somewhere else, even if it was somewhere in your expertise you do not consider reliable, it is not "original research".  This is clearly not "original research".  There is clearly a view that this is a fraud, in opposition to the view that it is not a  fraud.  If the fraud is as obvious and self evident as you say, there should be nothing to fear from letting people find out about its existence from a wikipedia article.  But if there is something to fear, and the article gets deleted, it will be just one more topic that people will have to get information about from outside of wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article presents the history and provenance of a stone artifact that was probably fabricated in modern times. The stone was shown at local fairs for more than 50 years before being displayed at two public libraries and a state park. It has been the subject of several newspaper articles, books, blogs, a dedicated web site, and more recently, an episode of the H2 documentary America Unearthed. Jason Colavito, a respected author of several books and a contributor to Skeptic magazine has taken notice, regarding the stone as a modern forgery. Contrary to the nom's assertion, the article does not consist of original research, but is a simple, summarized presentation of the available published information about the subject. The content has sufficient depth and diversity of sources to merit a short, dedicated article about the stone artifact. - MrX 21:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I missed that about Colavito. I would agree this probably ought to be withdrawn but will wait another day for more input. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - MrX 21:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. - MrX 21:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. - MrX 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - a sad story of wilful fraud, correctly unearthed and documented with proper citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Even if the stone is a likely hoax, its history is notable per the sources. I was hoping the sources would try and draw a Scottish connection insted of Wales.  Oh well.   little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 00:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Withdraw I ca see the WP:SNOW falling and it's obvious that I'm not going to get support on this. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see Articles for deletion for the correct way to do this. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Could an uninvolved editor or admin please close this? - MrX 21:09, 27 March 2013 (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.