Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montezuma's treasure


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Montezuma's treasure
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable sources seem to mention the topic. Challenged for sources, the author began creating fake sources. See []. SummerPhD (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC) *Weak Keep - Gets ghits but nothing reliably sourced as a major newspaper account or university archaelogy dig. If WP:RS sourcing could be provided, would change to Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC )
 * Keep., , , , , , , , , |+montezuma's-gold, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. — Rankiri (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - We don't need "sources", we need "reliable sources". - SummerPhD (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's the problem: nothing verifiable. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WP:V, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. From what I see, the story of Montezuma's treasure is largely a myth, and the fact that this myth was substantially covered by numerous seemingly reliable secondary sources is more than enough to satisfy WP:N. Unless you're arguing that that we should ask for evidence of existence of all mythological places and creatures, be it paradise or unicorns, please explain why exactly you find sources like Chicago Daily Tribune, The Pittsburgh Press, The Reading Eagle or The New York Times unreliable. — Rankiri (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All I need is one reliably sourced citation to the article to change my vote to Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Please let WP:CONSENSUS develop by letting regular editors state their views. --Morenooso (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google news search link at the top of the AFD, and you get 55 automatically. Click the one for Google book search and you get 554, although not all of those are nonfiction of course.  Its gets plenty of coverage in the news though.   D r e a m Focus  20:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - To all: Say there are x billion Google hits and that some of them must be reliable, non-fiction sources is not the same as supplying significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If anyone would care to provide reliable sources for the content in the article (the article itself would be a great place to do this, I'll close the AfD myself. At the moment, the article carries two sources, both of which are completely bogus. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There, added some. The first page of Google news hits had various results.  From a construction worker that found part of the treasure, to a guy who claims to have found a letter from two people that knew where it was at (article is to the right of where the link brings you too, so scroll over to see it), and plenty of claims of various Arizona legends.  A published book centuries ago by a Spanish Conquistador speaks in detail about the treasure.  Its a real thing, no one doubting this part of history, and gets plenty of coverage in many places, I finding some articles from the late 1800's even talking of it.   D r e a m Focus  03:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per new citations introduced into the article by Dream Focus --Morenooso (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - We now have the beginnings of an article on a different topic. I've sectioned off the original article and tagged it as a hoax (for the moment, the two hoax sources are also there). I'll give a couple of days for any objections, delete the hoax section and hoax sources (that is: the entire original article) and leave the new material as a sourced stub. Objections? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a reference to the first part. There is a book mentioning it . Easy enough to find with a quick search for "Montezuma's treasure" and the location "Montezuma's Head"   D r e a m Focus  16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is more information about that. and if you read through one of the links  you'll find under References to this book From other books, listing two more with titles that indicate they might have additional information here.  Not every book is digitized, and only older books are likely to talk about things like this, since people aren't as interested these days, and anything to write about it has already been done by others.  D r e a m Focus  16:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or worst case merge. There's enough reliable info here to establish its importance. Enough to write an article? Maybe, maybe not. But deletion is not suitable. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The actions in placing tags on the article smack of WP:OWN re this nomination and refusing to let the community decide consensus on the article. --Morenooso (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I in no way am refusing to allow consensus to determine the fate/future of this article. I was merely making clear that the sources that had been added sourced the new material and none of the old. The article's creator added completely fabricated sources for the article. The article now has a source that there is a legend. I would be removing a large chunk of unsourced info from the original creator and the false sources. I have no objection to anyone adding reasonably sourced material. Anyone who wishes to restore any unsourced material I have removed may certainly do so, and we can discuss the issue. I, for one, am inclined to doubt the good faith of an editor who creates imaginary sources in defense of an article they created. (Please note that editor's similarly situated articles, Red Jack's treasure and Wolf's treasure. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2010 (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.