Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kafeŕoor


 * 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   keep. Nakon 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Kafeŕoor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appear to be a hoax or neologism, with so few on-line sources that it appears virtually unknown or not-notable, with no sources to be able to write a contextual article. (I am aware not all information is online.) MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: I wrote the article. It is a legitimate entity within a legitimate navigational system. There are two references already. While I appreciate that sometimes it may be useful to request article deletion, that is actually a rare situation and in most cases it is an extreme and final course of action. In this case, there is no evidence. In future, if you want to call referenced articles written by long term contributors and administrators hoaxes — without even bothering to provide any evidence — I would point out that you are simply wasting people's time. prat (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Two references with only one sentence in each, nothing else, at all. If you would like to quote the policy that gives long term contributers and administrators a special symbol that says their articles are above Wikipedia policies, go ahead, then I will recognize the indicator in the future and know that the articles are off limits to me. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Length of reference is irrelevant, and I claim no special status... simply point out that even circumstantial evidence here points towards legitimacy. This article was created as part of my significant contributions to sailing articles, including Wa (watercraft) which incidentally earned an editors barnstar, and significant expansion to templates and their entries like Trimarans and Multihulls. prat (talk) 08:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Length of reference does matter, it goes towards establishing notability if someone writes a book or a paper about something versus mentioning it in passing. In the forner case you wind up readily finding agreement of notability as the source has been vetted, the topic, by publication and citations. In this case you give no indication that you plucked your terms out of anything but thin air, two sentences. There really seems to be nothing else on this topic, nothing. And you do claim special status, that of "long term contributors and administrators", so, what policies say that posting an AfD requires a check of how long you have been contributing and whether or not you have privileged AfD prevention status as an "administrator". MicroPaLeo (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From my perspective it's usual to see who created a page and in what context before calling for its outright deletion and I'm sorry if you feel this is somehow strange or requesting special treatment, which it is not. This is good encyclopedic content. The thrust of your argument in this case seems to be that you feel the subject is a 'hoax or neologism' because you can't see many references to it online. In fact, a lot of human knowledge existed before the internet, still exists outside of the internet, and will continue to do so. In this case, perhaps you are not aware that the subject is an element within near-extinct traditional celestial navigation system of a barely populated region of the Pacific Ocean. All the references are academic, in fitting with what you would expect for such a subject. Academic references are one of the most solid types available, because an author providing false or misleading information faces serious recourse in their career and reputation. Admittedly, there is little content here presently, however the correct option for Wikipedia in this case is to let the article grow as people find time and interest to bring in additional sources. Deleting it would negatively impact both context in other pages and the future of Wikipedia's coverage of the important historic navigation traditions underlining the Origins, exploration and settlement of Polynesia, one of earth's greatest and last peopled frontiers. This will be my last comment on this deletion request, which I consider ridiculous. prat (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Be sure to ping me when you find the "can't delete article because an administrator wrote it" policy. It is not a shortcoming, it is two sentences on the entire subject. Almost a Googlewhack. While claiming special administrator privileges, and that the writer of the article determines its notability (an anti-Wikipedia concept), you still have not offered more sources from anywhere, which may indicate you based this on only those two. I think the nomintation can based on policies which require the topic, not the writer, to be notable. MicroPaLeo (talk) 22:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Mythological places, historical mistakes and "lost" things are not hoaxes. This journal piece is a solid RS. It should also be noted that extinct volcanic islands in the central Pacific are always gradually subsiding under their own weight (the Hawaiian island chain being the archetypical example of that in progress from younger to older islands), with coral atolls being entirely coral perched atop now completely sunken volcanic features - sometimes precariously and prone to collapse after great storms or earthquakes. Since it was used in navigation, it is likely that Kafeŕoor once existed as a coral reef, but is now a seamount or guyot of indeterminate location. Pax 00:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it did it would be mentioned in more than one single source, one mention in a single 40-year-old source is not an encyclopedia article. Maybe it was never mentioned again, anywhere, because it was corrected out of that source. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Kaferoor" (no accent on the 'r') helps. This RS deals specifically with the subject of "ghost islands" in Polynesia, Kaferoor being one of them. Pax 21:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It's a stub on a fairly obscure topic, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Google Scholar search found several academic references. --MelanieN (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Several?" The same one plus a single regurgitation and nothing else before or after for decades? It was probably a misprint, now Wikipedia mirrors will have it rise out of nothing. MicroPaLeo (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2015 (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.