Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polynesian Conflict of 1286


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Polynesian Conflict of 1286

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

it's a fake article i believe YoYaYo123 (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I note that when the article was created it had a large number of references to books. These were removed by the nominator in this edit with the edit summary of 'none of these sources have anything to do with article', and it would be helpful if someone could verify that the references were hoaxes. The book 'The Polynesian Conflict of 1286' doesn't show up on a search of Google books and isn't in the holdings of the National Library of Australia, so it may not exist. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've restored the sources. This is in order to allow editors to check their provenance and to enable them to better determine the validity or otherwise of this nomination. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about this book as well, the ISBN doesn't seem to check out. I'm hoping it is a typo that the author can correct, but it does lend some weight to the hoax argument.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (Weak) delete It probably happened but I couldn't find any reliable sources online. I don't entirely agree with the reason for nomination, but nevertheless, I couldn't find anything reliable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It feels like a hoax. The details seem much too clear when what we know about it would have been based on oral traditions by both sides in the conflict. Would they both give the same account? Steve Dufour (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A brilliant hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. User:Talekhistor appeared just briefly enough to contribute this gem  and even added some fake references to real books, but to nobody's surprise, none of these mention anything happening in 1286.    .  Nice work though.  It stayed up for awhile, which either means that people thought it sounded true; or, more likely, nobody actually looked at it. Mandsford 13:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mandsford. Thanks for the detective work. The small number of page views (about 100 a month) indicates that this editor wasted their time. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 4 June 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.