Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treaty of Simulambuco


 * 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 - Nomination was due to lack of references, and references have been immediately added; the nom now says that article was unreferenced but agrees that now it is. No other delete votes. Non-admin closure. Cycl o pia -  talk  15:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Simulambuco

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced since 2007 Vidkun (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- It did happen, it just needs to be sourced. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That photo proves nothing, seriously. It's provided by a biased source (FLEC), and the actual monument inscription is unreadable. No proof is given via that photo that it is a monument to the treaty - only the caption.--Vidkun (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you are saying that the Treaty of Simulambuco doesn't exist because the photo (shown here as an example not as a reference) is from a source you describe as biased?--Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that the photo doesn't prove jack, it doesn't give any evidence that the Treaty existed, and is a red herring to this issue, that the article was lacking reliable sources and references.--Vidkun (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Unreferenced since 2007 - this is not a reason for deletion. Important historical treaty, widely covered in many publications. See Google Books result. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then add sources. I originally deleted two sources as they were from websites that were listed under a wikipedia blacklist of spam sites.  Additionally, they were POV pushing unreliable sources.--Vidkun (talk) 12:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you try to look at the Google Books link? I think you might find this link useful as well. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not the one pushing for keep, am I? This has gotten the attention of the Article Rescue Squadron, which is good, but all the people who added the original material had the onus to support it with reliable sources, not the people who removed unreliable sources.--Vidkun (talk)
 * Vidkun, the article was created in May 2006, and I'm not sure if anyone had the onus to support it with reliable sources in that time. I'm not a member of Article Rescue Squadron. I just think it's worthy of keeping. It is my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Vejvančický, I'm not saying you are part of the rescue squadron, I'm just noting that my putting this up for AfD, because it was unreferenced, got this article some much needed attention and references. However, regarding your other comment, absolutely someone had the onus to support the info with reliable sources: Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material.WP:NOR--Vidkun (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your explanation, however, a reliable sources can be found in this case. The problem is, that some parts of our article are copied from the section The legal and historical basis for self-determination of this article. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep 8 google news hits so it did happen, also has book and scholar hits --UltraMagnusspeak 13:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Never said it didn't happen, only that the article was unreferenced.--Vidkun (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. "Unreferenced" is only grounds for deleting articles that are suspected hoaxes.  This discussion pretty much establishes that this is not a hoax, and references have been added. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just a very personal opinion: The nom originally PRODded the article. I have recently took the habit of going through PRODs and, among perfectly fine PRODs, I often find cases like this one -and I in fact removed the PROD. This is in my opinion just one of the clear examples of how PRODs are often dangerous, being used with improper rationales and without attempts at WP:BEFORE. I invite everyone to give an eye at PRODs here and there in the future, and help avoid completely fine articles to be deleted without even an attempt at discussion. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That said, since the article has been sourced, I take the freedom to close AfD. -- Cycl o pia -  talk  15:09, 15 October 2009 (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.