Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starchild skull

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 no consensus. W.marsh 15:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starchild skull[edit]

Basically this page is complete bollocks. Originally I planned to simply delete everything that was unverified and inncorrect, but found that was virtually the entire article. Jefffire 10:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, this article is wp:bollocks Pervect 11:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the skull has a relatively substantial number of google hits, virtually none of them count as acceptable sources in a Wikipedia article. Given it is of borderline notability I'd say the door should be open to recreation in the event of verifiable sources being created, but until then it is probably beyond being salvaged. --Davril2020 16:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's disappointing to see an article with so many facts and figures and no references, but unfortunately that is also true for the majority of article on wikipedia. This article is not bollocks, there actuallly is a skull that has excited some debate among fringe scientists and people with an interest in such things. I know I have at least a couple of issues of Fortean Times with articles about this, so give me a couple of days to add references and delete the crap. --Joelmills 21:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and keep It's received plenty of attention. It might be a headache to find good sources, but Fortean Times would be a decent start (they're usually objective). Zagalejo 00:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the skull itself is real(though it could easily be a fake, it'd still be real), discussion on it is real. I might be inclined to consider it a Piltdown Man, but that's yet to be determined. FrozenPurpleCube 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does such an interesting article have to be deleted because of the lack of internet references to it? The skull does exist, and although it hasn't recieved as much attention as other archeological finds. This article is valid, and should be kept. - XX55XX 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead and rewrote the article (thanks to Jefffire for the vigorous cleanup). --Joelmills 17:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy with the clean-up now. The unverified material has been erased, and Joel has verified the new information. Jefffire 09:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the clean up. Arbusto 05:44, 6 October 2006 (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.