Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stradbroke Island Galleon

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. Shereth 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stradbroke Island Galleon[edit]

The subject of this article is considered a load of bollocks by mainstream archaeologists. Recently Greg Jefferys has self-published a book arguing the opposite view. This article was written by Greg Jefferys, quotes him extensively, and essentially promotes his point of view, and his book. I don't think it is would be possible to rewrite the article as a neutral summary of claim and counterclaim on the topic, as it appears the only readily available sources on it are Jeffrey's self-published book, and what media coverage Jeffrey's claims have attracted. One could go digging through Queensland's archives, but I believe this would only result in a novel narrative i.e. original research. Therefore I hold that the only appropriate action is to delete this as an insufficiently notable fringe theory. Hesperian 00:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Hesperian 00:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not written by me but I obviously have added to its content once I found it was up.

Actually Greg Jefferys (me) has a degree with majors in history and archaeology from the university of Queensland and currently doing a Master's Degree in History. My self published book contains a lot of original valid historic research from reliable historic sources. Sorry if I have not referanced the article well as I am just learning my way around Wikipedia and don't have that fluency yet. The Wiki article contains contributions from Peter Gsener head of the Queensland museum's maritime archaeology Museum. I'm glad we are not in 15th century or Hesperian would probably try to have me burned at the stake for heresy. Hesperian seems to be on a vendetta of some kind, got no idea why but just because he thinks its bollocks doesn't mean a zip. I would suggest he has not read the book and knows nothing about the subject because the story of the Stradbroke Galleon has been part of Stradbroke Island's oral history traditions back to the 1880's at least and is therefore a valid subject. There is mention of the Strabdroke galleon subject on at least 40 seperate websites and discussion on the subject has appeared in numerous books and magazine articles going back to newspaper articles in the Brisbane Courier Mail in 1921. Thomas Welsby, noted Brisbane historian and founder of the Brisbane Royal Historic Society includes mention of the Stradbroke Galleon in his books on Stradbroke Island and searched for it twice.

The Queensland State Library has a file on the subject of the Strabdroke Galleon as does the University of Queensland. The Stradbroke Island Musuem also has an extensive file on the Stradbroke Island galleon. THe Queensland Underwater Archaeologoy Association has led two expeditions to search for the Stradbroke Galleon so I do not know how Hesperian can say the subject is an insufficiently notable fringe theory? Gregjay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregjay (talk • contribs) 00:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you need some exact references for this material in actual books and magazine articles, not written by yourself. I doubt that letters to the editor in a newspaper or websites will count for a topic like this. There is also the NOV problem--you would need to discuss also--indeed predominantly-- what I gather is the mainstream view that it is not an historic galleon.(unsigned by DGG)

Comment - a big problem here appears to be a user who cannot sign, and has limited understanding of the issues of WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS and makes claims that are not relevant to what is required in the average Afd discussion - whether the evidence of others has any capacity for Hesperian to be burned at the stake is irrelevent - a good read of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD could really help - rather than focussing on the nominator - and attacking a person rather than the issue. Claiming academic credentials and dropping names of those who might have considered the issue is irrelevent - it is the article and it capacity to withstand the rigors of what the nominator has pointed out above - that is under discussion Satu Suro 01:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I believe their might some shipwreck of unknown origin in a swamp on the island, I don't think the article belongs here. At the moment it is a fine yarn to tell, but details of the possible items discovered from the wreck are too sketchy, there is too much supposition about the wreck and speculation regarding historians motivations. If more reliable sources could confirm it's existence then an article referencing those sources could establish facts and in this case, move a possibility on the fringe to a re-write of the mainstream of Australia's discovery by Europeans. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For an article to merit inclusion it should sourced with reliable sources, among other things. I can't find any reliable sources for this article, because none of them are independent of the person who wrote this article. Also, seemingly this is not widely accepted as being true. SJP (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails WP:RS and appears to be original research. --Pmedema (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Back in mid 2006, a retired academic from Dubrovnik wrote an article for the English Wikipedia, apparently recounting the life of C16th Dalmatian seafarer Vice Bune. The article claimed Dalmatians first explored New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago, and the Solomon Islands. He claimed that in the late C16th Vice Bune established a Dalmatian trading post on the Solomon Islands. And so on…

The author of the Vice Bune articles provided a number of credible looking references. Some were to inaccessable “old documents” in Dubrovnik, but there were other references to web articles. It slowly became obvious though, that the articles were ones he had written himself under different names. The same article appeared in different language versions of WP for some time, until deleted. You can see the vestage of the Vice Bune affair at [[1]] and [[2]]

These issues of credibility and authenticity can strike at the heart of the Wikipedia project. So for precisely the same reason, this article, as it stands, has no place in WP. By the way, Lawrence Fitzgerald’s Java La Grande, cited as a reference here, contains no reference to a Stradbroke Island Galleon. --Nickm57 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Nickm57 and WP:SOAP. This is clearly very dubious, and there seems to be only one person who's pushing this POV - and he wrote the article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:POV One line article --Numyht (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- --Bduke (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article as it stands is a POV mess, but that in itself is not an argument for deleting. There does seem to be some indication that this legend does exist separate from Greg Jefferys. This tourist site may be one such indication. The questions are really whether the legend is notable and whether there are good sources. Then both sides of the argument could be presented and a NPOV article could emerge. A University of Quuensland page describes the legend as pseudoscience. I'm as opposed to pseudoscience as the next scientist, but pseudoscience can be notable and we can have articles on pseudoscience. --Bduke (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - almost all tourist web sites are highly derivative and indiscrimate with no standards of any sort for their information or sources - (so that is pseudoscience for a start, sic) - there is nothing in the article or the discussion to date suggesting that the writer or the article is actually concerned with the idea as an aspect pseudoscience - so the idea is possibly a good one but not appropriate for this afd imho - the idea of an article emerging seems odd Satu Suro 01:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not researched this sufficiently, but see nothing odd about the possibility that the POV stuff about Greg Jefferys' views can be edited to be both more neutral and shorter and that material describing this legend as pseudoscience, like the lecture by the UQ academic, can not be added to give a good article about a legend. It really depends on whether the legend is notable, but it does seem to have been noted. It does not matter what Greg Jefferys, as writer, is concerned about. Other editors might be able to make the article better. Note that, because I have not had the time to research this better, I am not expressing a view. I am merely wondering whether we are about to lose an article that could be a good article. People are interested in legends. --Bduke (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bduke, the reason I have nominated this is because I didn't think it possible to gather sufficient independent information even for a stub. By all means prove me wrong; if you can stub this back to something you consider accurate and balanced, I will gladly withdraw this nomination. Hesperian 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My name is Alex Shipway and I was the original creator of this page. Although the way I created the page was incorrect, it was soon fixed and other users added on knowledge of their own. I believe this page, one that has history of Australias foundings, should definately be kept here for people to research and seek out the history of Australia. The argument for deletion basicaly is because their is little evidence, howevery, look at the list of cryptids page, most of these animals definately do not exist and their is no evidence for them yet they are still on wikipedia. Isnt the coin dated 1597 enough evidence? it proves the theory of date and time. In conclusion, I believe that this page should stay on wikipedia, so thta others can seek out the truth of Australia's Discovery. KGCSIG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.56.80 (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so this should be read by interested parties imho - cheers :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Satu Suro 08:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI don't know what all the fuss is about I enjoyed the page, its an intersting subject, who knows which European country discovered Australia first, plenty of Spanish ships dissappeared in the Pacific, why don't some of these people complaining about the format just tidy it up ? Noah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.105.55 (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparent original research which can damage Wikipedia. And if User:Nickm57 is correct in that one of the quoted book sources does not in fact mention the subject, then the honesty of the author is in doubt. Moondyne 13:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment the book Java La Grande is a referance on the subject because it pertains to the theory of Spanish or Portuguese discovery of Australia not because it mentions the Stradbroke Galleon legend. Most, if not all, of the people going for the delete option have no knowlegde of the subject and the only issue seems to be formatting or other convention that genuinely concerned editors would simply fix up. Obviously not every contributor is going to be an expert on Wikiepedia formating and language convention etc. this should not, in fairness be grounds for deleting an otherwise valid articleGregjay (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ok lets go through them one by one -(1) articles are not valid if they fail the WP:RS - specially third party sources - that is nothing to do with formatting (2) no one is claiming anything about either being experts either in the subject (3) knowledge of a subject has nothing to do with debates about deletion (4) there is nothing to do with a 'fix-up' - the principle at stake which seems to have been lost on supporters are basic principles of what wikipedia is and is not - have a look at WP:NOT - this Afd has now enough items if actually checked show that the article has no legs to stand on Satu Suro 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly referenced. The main contributor appears to have problems with WP:COI. There are few reliable sources. Gillyweed (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greg – a reality check here. As SatuSuro points out, the concerns with this page are not simply about “formatting or other conventions.” I take it you haven’t had the time or inclination to read WP policies on writing articles, many linked above on this page. You really need to do this. If you get a reputation for stubbornly refusing to follow WP practices, as appears likely with your determined efforts to add the "Stradbroke Island Galleon" to Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia, you are simply going to end up frustrated and even more cheesed off with what you call “mainstream academics”. Can’t you see that most WP contributors and readers are naturally going to be suspicious of any writer who cites himself as the key source, five times, as you do in this article here ? --Nickm57 (talk) 02:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment well Nickm57 I do appriciate what you are saying and no i have not read the WP policies but will do so however I find it puzzling that the Mahogany Ship the Geelong Keys and various other anomolies can be happily included in the Portuguese Discovery of Australia article when there is much less historic material to support their valitidity when compared with the Stradbroke Galleon story. For some reason, I guess because I self published a book that poo poos the Archaeological fraternity and opposes the conventional view of Australian discovery, a lot of people have their nose out of joint about the Stradbroke Galleon story. I will read the WP policies and attempt to revise the article to conform. The reality that needs checking is the one where double standards are applied to different contributors which is certainly the case here; one only has to look at Hesperian's insulting language when he deleted my contribution to the Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia which I think is at least as valid as the other articles in that sub-section . The reason I maintain my efforts to have the Stradbroke Story included in teh Portuguse piece is because it is valid to the argumentGregjay (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commentI enjoyed the article and found it quite informative. I've read better laid out articles in Wikipedia but also plenty of worse ones as well I can see no reason for deleting it as it supplies information on an interesting and valid historic subject. I had a look at the Portuguese article mentioned by Nick57 and i can not see why its any better than the Stradbroke Galleon work. The Portuguese Theory sights McIntyre or his book as a referance about 20 times! Keep the galleon story its good. Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.219.8 (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2008 (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.