Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuente Magna


 * 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 Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fuente Magna

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable potential OoPA, may be a wp:hoax regardless only reliable source is a stub, not sufficient to confirm WP:N Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Also want to add that article should be Salted as commentary on talk page suggests it may have previously been deleted and re-created. see here Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * we can address this when we come to that turn. The article hasnt been deleted before, but I note it has been around since 2005, based on the 1985 article addressing it. By our current standards (or even our 2005 standards, but we didn't patrol such articles for notability with any rigour back then), this isn't in any way sufficient for a standalone article. If the article contains a claim to pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact, it might be mentioned in a short paragraph in that article. --dab (𒁳) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * delete pending the provision of actual WP:RS establishing notability. --dab (𒁳) 17:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * in fact, I think a merge to section to Pre-Columbian_trans-Atlantic_contact may be arguable. We'll see if such a section will survive in the "contact" article, which is patrolled much more rigorously for notability of fringe theories. --dab (𒁳) 17:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This is referenced as an OOPart (Out-of-place artifact). I recommend retaining it. Most OOParts have small articles, although some have large ones. Almost all are frauds, hoaxes, or otherwise lack provenance -- that does not mean they shouldn't have an entry. Alternatively I would be OK with having the article be a redirect to the OOPart page, with each "small article" OOPart just having a section on that page. Most people will come to it after looking up OOPart. SunSw0rd (talk)


 * Comment Above suggestion would be problematic as per WP:DUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATEalthough there are references to this being an OoPA there are no reliable sources suggesting this position, as has been discussed on the talk page for the article .Simonm223 (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge Agreed that this probably does not warrant an article but as a number of un-reliable sources pop up in a Google Search and the artefact does seem to exist in a museum it probably is worth a small mention as a disputed artefact. That it has been referenced in at least one (albeit not very notable) published work of fiction may also be worth a mention. It is unfortunate that no source positively identifies it as a fake or at least wrongly identified artefact.—Ash (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominator Concurs Ok, you all convinced me, merge is fine. Simonm223 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and indef protect the redirect after threats (to recreate) on talk page. 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal (talk • contribs) 20:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (threats) I can not see where the threats are on the talk page, perhaps you could include a diff?—Ash (talk) 09:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Threats to keep recreating the page, as it was linked from Out of place artifact, another awful (though probably notable) article. Clarification added. Verbal chat  09:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, don't merge:
 * It is a crappy, stubby article, but one that could have promise if someone would put work into it (and snag a photo). Given how long it's been known about, and the age of the theory about it being Sumerian, it's certainly notable. Not well known, but well enough known. So deletion would be wrong. Take a look at Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head which gives a good idea of where this article can go, just with a bit of work.
 * Merging is equally wrong, as the object's discovery predates the fringe theory about it by what, a good three and a half decades? Certainly mentioning the theory here, and linking here from Pre-Columbian_trans-Atlantic_contact, is a great idea. But merging gives a wrong impression about the artifact itself.
 * --coldacid (talk|contrib) 03:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * hm, precisely because it has been known for a long time, and nobody has written anything about it, neither scholarly, nor fiction, nor pop culture, we can safely assume it is completely unnotable. Hell, we even need to resort to archive.org to get a decent web page about the thing. --dab (𒁳) 14:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Concur; I agreed that a Merge would be more appropriate than a delete would be but I stand by my original statement that this object is not independently notable from the parent topic. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact. There simply aren't enough reliable sources discussing it to warrant a separate page. There's a website from the University of California, Riverside, that talks about it, though E. Fred Legner's expertise is in biological pest control. A book mentions it here. p.s. Dbachmann, the use of the hoax tag on articles such as this is inappropriate, as if there is a hoax it is not being conducted by Wikipedia editors. We don't use it on Piltdown Man. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant merge (or delete) Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca head has an article in a reputable journal, it is not comparable. Fences and Windows, the book is not only by a specialist in software, he users worldmysteries.com as his source, so it's not independent from the web page which itself is not a reliable source. So on two counts the mention in the book is irrelevant I believe. And we do use the hoax tag on Piltdown Man -- it isn't for hoaxes created by Wikipedia editors. The UCal website is odd as it says "For educational purposes only; do not review, quote or abstract" - and anything that takes Clyde Winters seriously is hardly reliable. Dougweller (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete, or Merge and see if the materials ends up staying in Pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact. ClovisPt (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (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.