Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precolombian goldworking of the Chibchan Area


 * 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 Sourcing is given so the argument that it is OR seems to have been handled. A merger may be advisable. JoshuaZ 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Precolombian goldworking of the Chibchan Area

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Tagged for speedy as an essay, which is not a valid criterion. Can this be made into an encyclopedic article? Or should it go to data heaven? YOU decide on tonight's episode of the top-rated hit "WIKIPEDIA ... Articles For Deletion". Daniel Case 00:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete per nom. Essay, OR, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not OR because, despite it being tagged as unsourced, the book "Gold and Power in Ancient Costa Rica, Panama, and Colombia" edited by Jeffery Quilter and John W. Hoopes is clearly and repeatedly referenced.  I would think that many articles on Wikipedia could be termed an 'essay' but that's not a valid deletion criteria, as the nom points out.  With some more editing there is perfectly reasonable article here, and collectively refining and improving articles is what wikipedia is all about. Nick mallory 05:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * very weak delete very weak keep - Argh! I'd actually like to see more of this in Wikipedia: not OR, but rather scholarly writing. You know, instead of articles on indie bands and characters from cartoons. Unfortunately, it seems it was created by a SPA who's since disappeared. If anyone can simply make the first few steps towards fixing this up, consider my vote changed to keep. Someone's graciously made the first steps towards cleaning this article up, and it's really not a lot worse than many other scholarly articles from early-decade Wikipedia (very little is actually sourced around here), and as it's on a very useful yet minor topic, I just have to vote keep. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wikified it, made the source clear and tidied it up a bit. Nick mallory 05:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're awesome for doing so. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, copyvio. This text was almost certainly either scanned from a book or retyped by hand. Although the subject is valid and this article is not a hoax or OR, this is blatant and unacceptable copy/pasting. Properly wikified and sourced, this could have made a good article, though. --Targeman 02:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have for saying it's a copyvio exactly apart from a hunch? If it had been scanned from a book I doubt the 'Bering land bridge' would have been called the 'bearing land bridge' as it is here. I also doubt that an academic book would term Columbus one of the "conquistadores" or use the phraseology often employed in this piece or written 'Precolombian' in the title instead of Pre-Columbian.  Nick mallory 05:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * None, that's why I said "or retyped by hand". I should have made myself clearer on "book" though - I was thinking of somebody's college dissertation. I've reviewed enough of those to recognize the style. It is wholly possible that the author inserted a chunk of his or her own college dissertation in this article. (I don't know if that's technically a copyvio for WP). The spelling mistakes, the imprecise terminology and the style of the in-sentence quotations point to that. It would be enough to launch a plagiarism investigation at my alma mater - but I'll rely on your better knowledge of WP policies to determine whether it's a problem here. As I said, I have no issue with the article's content, especially now that you've wikified it (BTW, nice job). If you say no copyvio, I'll change my vote to keep. --Targeman 11:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An easy way to determine copyvio (from an internet source) is to take an idiomatic phrase from the article and do an "exact phrase match" search on Google. If you don't find anything, at least it proves it's not copyvio from the intenet. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 14:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did that, and I didn't find anything- that's why I didn't mention the internet in my comment. --Targeman 14:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - as essay. Onnaghar tl 13:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge Sourced, albeit to one source; not really an "essay" though the writing style might strike people that way; this should probably be merged into another article about Pre-Columbian goldworking, since the content is just fine. Mandsford 17:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. OR.  James   Luftan  contribs 23:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Being a poorly written article is not a criterion for deletion. The article is already tagged for clean up and that is all it needs.  It cites a source, so it cannot be WP:OR unless the source does not exist or the content does not reflect what the source says.  No one has alleged that.  Many WP articles are summaries of published work -  but a legitimate one in an encyclopaedia (not illicit plagiarism or COPY-VIO).  Unless some one can produce a valid reason for deletion, this article should be kept.  I know nothing of the subject myself, but it looks credible to me.  Peterkingiron 23:25, 7 August 2007 (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.