Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moab man


 * 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. Concerns adequately addressed by rewrite. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Moab man

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I can't find reliable sources, all references given are 404s Pontificalibus (talk) 08:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough and lack of coverage --Jamie Shaw (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article seems to be a joke. Bad English was used, for instance "bee" for "be", yet the editor seems to have a good understanding of how to use WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article was not meant to be a joke. The editor who created the article is active on the Swedish Wikipedia. Here's the same article there. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The article may be terrible but I would hardly assume the topic is a joke. I find some references,, .  But it hasn't been picked up by any mainstream media.  I would say Weak Delete but perhaps with a redirect to a sentence somewhere?  I'm not sure where.  I say don't jump the gun.  This seems to be the centerpiece of a fringe-debate about creationism...it's just too fringe to have attracted more than tangential coverage in reliable sources.  Cazort (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: potentially notable, but page author has only presented one side of what seems to be a misinterpreted and exaggerated find.  J. Spencer (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that one of the source citations given in the article doesn't contain a URL in the first place, I observe that the nominator has not expended the proper amount of effort in looking at the sources that were already cited in the article at the time of nomination. J. Spencer points to a fairly extensive source above.  That source itself also cites the very same source as aforementioned, as a matter of fact.  The presentation of all points of view, that J. Spencer talks of, can, for starters, be performed by presenting Ottinger's own point of view on these finds, as is reported in this PSCF article.  This WWW page points to more sources, one of which, Burdick, even describes the results of the application of the Kjeldahl method to the bones.  There seems to be enough source material for an article to be had, here. Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all very well citing sources to cover all points of view, but none of the sources given here or in the article constitute reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's plenty of discussion of these skeletons in peer-reviewed literature; I'm thinking specifically of Coulam and Schroedl (1995). "The Keystone Azurite Mine in Southeastern Utah" Utah Archaeology 8(1):1-12. Although the article was in poor shape at the time of its creation (and deletion nomination), the topic itself is noteworthy. I haven't found any 404s, and the best sources for this article appear to be offline. It will take me some time to properly expand the article (because I'll have to mail away for the best reference), but the content is encyclopedic. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would keep if good coverage in offline sources could be found. Is this something that most geologists would know anything about?  Cazort (talk) 20:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I'm not a geologist, I cannot answer your question. However, offline sources from peer-reviewed scientific sources have been found for this article. One just needs to pay for the publications, something I'm willing to do, if the article is kept (I don't want to pay money for an article which is deleted anyway). This article, on another "Creationist fossil" (even held at the same museum) was salvaged in a similar manner at AFD, when I sent away for the original publication.
 * The original "Moab man" AFD nomination was based on this version of the article, which was poorly-spelled and contained mostly Creationist stuff, with three references from Creationist web sites. That has been cleaned up. It still contains the Creationist claim, but also has refutation of those claims from geologists who examined the "fossils" (which weren't fossilized, BTW). It will also contain some peer-reviewed papers, if the article is kept. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It might have started out as Creationist propaganda, but it seems notable and there's now a balanced discussion. This page gives a good overview: and refers to other sources we could use. Fences and windows (talk) 00:23, 30 May 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.


 * Comment: I am sorry if my english is bad, but i am from Sweden, and haven't yet completed my time in school, so i'm hope you can forgive me for it. When i wrote the article about the Moab man, it was not mean to be a joke, i do not write lies on wikipedia ( unless things which is categorised "creationistic things" is lies ). And when i wrote the article, i wanted to do it good for all of us. I wanted to write it so it could be a good article for both creationists and people who belive something else. I wrote that radiocarbon date of the bones gave a young age, but that's the same case as in carbon dating of dinosaur bones. I also wrote arguments which talks for the theory that it is indian bones from a young era. I want to be humble, and i try to be so!/Thanks, Conty, 10 june.