Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvador Fernandes Zarco


 * 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 per WP:FRINGE, WP:HOAX, and WP:NOT, due to lacking verifiability and independent mentions in media. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Salvador Fernandes Zarco

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article describes a nonnotable (and far-fetched) theory about the true identity of Columbus, solely based on a web page by the author of the theory, a medical doctor. --Lambiam 09:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge to main Columbus article if it's shown to be encyclopedic, otherwise delete. Xiong Chiamiov   ::contact::  help! 09:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. A nonnotable theory – meaning that it has not been reported on in reliable sources, and therefore does not meet the requirement of verifiability – is almost by definition not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for fringe theories that otherwise would not get attention. --Lambiam 16:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. STORMTRACKER   94  12:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete original research per the nominator, and per WP:FRINGE, which states "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively." Two web sites isn't extensive. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect (or at least redirect) to Origin_theories_of_Christopher_Columbus, where this theory is already at least partially covered. There is not enough material here for a verifiable separate article, but it is reasonable that this be mentioned in a survey article as one among various theories. -- Visviva (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE states: "Conjectures that have not received critical review from the scientific community or that have been rejected should be excluded from articles about scientific subjects. However, if the idea is notable in some other way such as coverage in the media, the idea may still be included in articles devoted to the idea itself or non-scientific contexts." This idea has zero coverage in the media. --Lambiam 13:21, 22 December 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.