Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanooj-Nanoch


 * 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Nanooj-Nanoch

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparent hoax. Only G-hits are blogs. —teb728 t c 05:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC) By G-hits I mean those that mention "Nanooj-Nanoch". —teb728 t c 09:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Userify -- Not a hoax. The sources look genuine, but reflecting on-going cutting-edge research.  So far the researchers apparntly ahve a couple of tablets in an unknown local language, which they can read, becasue it is in a known script.  However, WP does not like publishing primary research.  It may well be that in a couple of years, they work will be published.  At that point the article can be updated (for new publications) and uploaded.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge University and ScienceDaily references are genuine but make no mention of “Nanooj-Nanoch.” The wordpress and blogspot references are not reliable sources. The article has the appearance of being at best a fringe theory. —teb728 t c 09:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 20:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom; reliable sources don't mention this "language" and sources that do mention it aren't reliable (ie one blog post). Looks like a hoax to me. Jinkinson   talk to me  23:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. While the 2009 (not 2012 as the article says) discovery of the cuneiform tablet seems to be verifiable, a Google Scholar search gives no hits for either "Nanooj-Nanoch" or Nonuuj-Nonukk. The bulk of the article appears to blatant original research at best, and pure fantasy at worst. This quote from one of the cited anonymous blog posts tells the story: "And, given the tenuousness of the information, I am unable to publish the information though traditional peer-reviewed channels, which pushed me to share it with you all in this limited form intended for a select few colleagues and friends. When all the information is available, I do plan to publish officially (so please do not steal these early thoughts). Also, full disclosure, I am not a senior accredited authority on the matter. I am, however, an ambitious graduate student at a respected collegiate program." We should get rid of this—the sooner, the better.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have also accessed the 2012 paper discussed in the Cambridge research summary. It confirms that the tablet contains only the list of 144 women, whose names suggest they come from a previously unknown linguistic group. The rest, about the mysterious deities, weaponry, and 'unending warfare', seems to be complete invention.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Reliable sources discussing an item of archeological research have been grafted on to a silly fantasy about unknown female gods being perpetuated on blogspots and forums. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources cited on the article, looks an absolute mess. Goblin Face (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2014 (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.