Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-Siberian American Aborigines

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Siberian American Aborigines[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Improve or delete The lack of proper references, and the controversy of this subject, suggest this article is little more than WP:POV speculation. It should be sorted out or deleted, especially as it has significant potential impacts on a whole swathe of racial, land rights, religious, scientific and other issues. Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep It certainly is an important topic, whatever the facts turn out to be. The article is no ~~worse~~ more poorly sourced and written than many on WP. Is there another one on early American pre-history where it can be merged? Northwestgnome (talk) 23:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something more substantial than a few costumes and a few random irregularities in tested theories show up. This looks like pure speculation of the "grasp all the odd things and try to create a link" school. It offers no evidence of how these proto-Australoids would travel 10,000 miles, and be found all across the Americas, but leave nothing but a couple of costumes, and a couple of canoes, either of which could more easily be explained by parallel development--if one group came up with it, another could, and usually have--and then lose all knowledge of craft of that quality, and not leave evidence all over the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Are there any peer reviewed papers? And how was the reception among specialists in the various fields? DNA groups? Various other technologies? I'd say it needs real sourcing and a complete rewrite if there is any credible evidence, or deletedMzmadmike (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteOriginal research. There are no Google Scholar sources using this phrase so not even a useful redirect. There is one Google Book source, published by Alphascript -- but all that they publish is reprints from Wikipedia (their statement) although their home page says "one of the leading publishing houses of academic research". Any useful content can be redistributed, see Talk:Pre-Siberian American Aborigines#Reads Like Original Research To Me. Dougweller (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fix it or delete - this is more of a synthesis situation than original research, because there are some citations and a considerable biography. Bearian (talk) 05:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete article: Article must be fixed and sources put in . Although some will find the theory controversial, it has not come out of the blue : Some of the scientific theories were raised by serious Brazilian Scientists involved with studies in the Northeast region of that country. Therefore deleting the article could only show that some user's are using the deletion very quickly when they are not open to discuss scientific theories which contradict the "establishment " . It is too early to come up with the idea of deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.226.31 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2009

DeleteThis article appears to be a synthesis of multiple sources, it's not cogently put together and is written from the authors POV. I would say fix it, but I don't think it can be fixed until more published sources that specifically spell out the hypothesis, come to light. Until then you could add as many sources as you want and it would only become well sourced synthesis. BrendanFrye (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.