Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasure of Cheste


 * 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. The single delete !vote's issues seems to have been ameliorated. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Treasure of Cheste

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Treasure of Cheste was created in Jan. of 2010, but has only seen seven edits since then, 2 by bots. A Google search shows no hits for the item, and while it does show hits for a similar "Treasure of Chester", that's in the US, not in Spain. The one source it mentions in the article, a study partially exists on Google, but I can't find a result of a study perfectly matching the name offered in the article. Further more, the book was only available for sale by 2 local online regional vendors on sale, and was not on Amazon or eBay. While this does not confirm anything, it is suspicious that the book is not on top book sites, and is not in stock. Does it not exist anymore? Suspicious, I looked in the Library of Congress archives, nothing even in PDF form or online form. No notable, 3rd party news articles on Google News, odd since local media would usually cover an artifact found this old and so important to Spain. Growing even more suspicious, I looked at the edit history of the article. The original creator, SergiBCN2 had created the article in 2010, but what is odd is it was his first edit and then he disappeared for 4 years, not editing it again. After that, an IP edited the article, 62.57.44.164, just 4 hours after the article was created and then he disappeared, but he never came back and that was his only edit. Then in 2014, after 4 years of inactivity, Helga ru edited the page. But what is surprising is that all 47 of his edits were made in five days, almost all of them trying and requesting to create the museum page, for where this item was hosted and then editing this page, and then he too was gone. Other then these 3, no one has made any sizeable edits to this page. Museum page only cites own website as source, and that website has no mention of this. Violation of WP:V and WP: N. Possibly a hoax? Image was added by creator of article, but does not look professional, looks faked, with no trace of the original anywhere on the net. Please check the article's edit histories and diffs, all of the user's involved contribs and do all of the verification searches I have done before commenting. My opinion is leaning Delete, possibly a hoax Hitterneuron (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a possible hoax based on the name, I see no references that don't point back to wikipedia. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, this is not a hoax, see the official website of the municipality of Cheste which in the history page discusses the hoard ie. "In the area we are dealing with, the Cheste treasure, also known as the "de la Safa" treasure, is of great importance. It is proof of the pressure generated by the Punic in Levantine lands and their penetration into the interior" (thankyou gtranslate), that said, without more sources, this article could be deleted with possibly history of Cheste section being expanded. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ps. this article is also found in the spanish wiki at Tesoro de Cheste, the article creator there appears to be the same editor as here and appears to be more active there. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment, as for the book used as a reference in the article, Tesoros monetarios de Valencia y su entorno it definitely exists, Worldcat shows it is held by 18 libraries throughout the world and here is a review of the book by the Journal of Roman Archaeology. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Well, thanks for proving me wrong. However, the book even by what you mentioned would be hard to find. The study seems credible, but without other sources, would not be worth a stand-alone article. Nothing seems to be online, and the source you mentioned, would not go very indepth. I would support talking about this on the homepage of Cheste and making a area for it, or just adding on would be even better to the Cheste article (town itself) Thanks. Hitterneuron (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not a hoax, and the difficulty of locating a book doesn't disqualify it as a reliable source. I imagine Spanish-language books on numismatics typically don't have a wide circulation. GBooks and GScholar searches for "Cheste hoard" (a better translation than the current title) turn up enough mentions in English sources for a short article, and there are almost certainly more in Spanish. Its entry in this catalogue of coin hoards lists eleven scholarly sources that discuss it (as of 1979). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the article using these references. It's quite an interesting find, really. I'm imagining some mercenary hiding his ill-gotten gains before going off to meet a sticky end in the Second Punic War. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Joe. Since the sources are found here, I would lean towards a Keep now, but consensus can decide. Hitterneuron (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, good work by, article now shown to meet WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2017 (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.