Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venuses from Kangari Hills


 * 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. Snow close as an obvious hoax. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Venuses from Kangari Hills

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Very likely hoax. No RSes discuss these, in the scholarly literature or otherwise. This would be a revolutionary archaeological finding -- a sophisticated human figurine tens of thousands of years older than any prior recorded -- and be covered in reams of journal articles; there are no results on Google Scholar, JSTOR, ProQuest, etc. Categorized on Commons as a forgery. Vaticidalprophet 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Vaticidalprophet 20:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete as a hoax. As stated above, a find such as this would have enormous anthropological significance, and would have far better sourcing than the supposed offline-only newspapers given in the article. As it is, I likewise can find nothing at all. firefly  ( t · c ) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: This is an obvious fraud. A real revolutionary discovery would have received a massive amount of scholarly attention. This hoax has received no attention whatsoever. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Reverse image search gave me some pictures of the newspapers. There's nothing else I could find, which probably signals a hoax. — Goszei (talk)  22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Addendum: Delete as a hoax. — Goszei (talk)  06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The newspapers themselves being real is worth noting, but yeah, they'd have huge, widespread scholarly coverage as a total rewrite of our understanding of the prehistory of symbolic sculpture if they existed. The main source for that linked piece seems to be...Wikipedia. Also, according to talk page comments, the animal they're supposedly made of the ivory of didn't live in the area at the time. Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete This is clearly fraudulent or it would be obviously a lot easier to find third party sourcing and supporting media coverages. I say get rid of it.--Canyouhearmenow 22:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Delete,  I seem to have made an error when I accepted it a year ago. I can't immediately account for the error  DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hoax, per all above. Too clever by half – all the elaborate claims raise obvious alarm bells. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.