Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkey Mountain inscriptions

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 August 13.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. There is certainly a strong consensus for the article not to be kept in its current form; the main contention is whether it should be merged or deleted. Numerically, the delete and merge votes are roughly equal. Those voting for delete note that this is a fringe theory with no independent sources to establish notability. They have also contested that merging the article would not resolve this issue. No one supporting the merger of the article has countered this argument, so no strong case has been put forward against deletion. Canvassing was a slight issue which I gave minor consideration too; however, it did not have a significant impact and only one new editor made a comment following the incident. Therefore, the consensus is for the article to be deleted. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Mountain inscriptions

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

The topic falls under WP:FRINGE, which requires it to be discussed in a serious manner by several reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I can only find one (iffy) source which does so (America B.C. : Ancient Settlers in the New World, by Fell, Barry, published by Simon & Schuster in New York). The article cites this... and a self-published website by Gloria Farley, the person who "discovered" the inscriptions and came up with the theory that they were of pre-Columbian Celtic/Punic origin (neither independent nor reliable, and so not good for establishing notability). It also sites some scholarly sources that debunk the general idea that there was any pre-clumbian settlement by Europeans (other than the aborted Scandinavian settlement in Canada) - but these sources do not mention Turkey Mountain at all. I feel that additional sources are needed... I have conducted a reasonable search without finding any, and I have repeatedly asked if there are any additional sources (not necessarily scholarly source... media stories, tourist brochures, etc) to support the notability of the inscriptions, but no one has been able to provide any. I would be happy to withdraw this nomination if it turns out that there are sources... but as things stand now, I feel I must nominate. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one independent secondary source that describes the theory that the markings read Gwynn in Ogham and Pyaa in Canaanite: History of Southwest Tulsa (2003) p. 14. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that published? Can you provide the ISBN? All I could find is a self-published pdf of the same name and date. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable fringe. The site exists, but is supposedly notable only because of the fringe theories associated with it, none of which is notable or has been widely discussed, either within or outside of the fringe community. Mainly mentioned on very-low quality fringe blogs and in other low-quality self-published fringe sources. No mention at all in reliable sources after extensive Google, Google Books, and Google Scholar searches. Scant mention in fringe sources, mainly to a self-published website and a fringe book by a non-expert. Extensive discussion on article talk page and FTN established that none the fringe sources that mention the insciptions are notable or widely held or discussed. No credible evidence of notability whatsoever. The reliable sources used do not discuss the insciptions at all, but are used only to undermine the premise of the fringe theories. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge At this time not seeimg any evidacen of any notabilty, fringe as well.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There was a request for sources to show notability in 2008. None have appeared. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). It could function as a short subsection of the main article. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chnaged my choice to merge, seems like this is a workable solution.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article already contains a short paragraph noting the existence of the inscriptions (which mentions that "enthusiasts" believe the inscriptions are of Ancient European origin). I think this brief mention of the inscriptions (and the theory of their origins) is appropriate... but to say more in the context of that article (an general geographical article about the mountain) would give WP:UNDUE weight to the fringe theory. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be sufficiant, but could move the 'sources' from here to there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merging won't do if there are no reliable sources, and none have been found. The Tulsa pdf is just that, something that appears to be an internal document (one paragraph even has a question to the author of the paragraph appended to it). Til is its strongest backer and has not been able to come up with anything meeting our requirements. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes passing mention http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/archaic.htm, not sure if its RS or not.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not reliable. And we need a lot more than passing mention. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Doug about there being no point in merging. The inscriptions are not mentioned by any reliable sources at all, so we have nothing to merge. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7p4iAQAAMAAJ&q=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&dq=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&source=bl&ots=i9so8NCtzp&sig=-XR2mQORDB6cHqtHfQO6bamr0YM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PIceUPqIOqGe0QXV-ICgDQ&ved=0CEEQ6AEwAw, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=p4ryAAAAMAAJ&q=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&dq=inscriptions++%2B+%22turkey+mountain%22&source=bl&ots=s9kw_d7jmk&sig=3FKXy0nVgrM6dbRI3Y_-GFbAvGs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PIceUPqIOqGe0QXV-ICgDQ&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA Needs checking.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First source mentions it only in passing, and even then, puts "inscriptions" in scare quotes. Second source is fringe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Cultural Resources Literature Search Arkansas River Corridor

Tulsa, OK May 2005 Submitted To: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Tulsa District:

Additional evidence of early human activity in the Arkansas River comes in the form of inscriptions on rocks believed to be made by Vikings or similar exploratory early Europeans around 1,000 AD (O’Brien 1996).

Such petroglyphs have been found at Turkey Mountain†† which is adjacent to the Arkansas River in the Middle Reach of the planning area (O’Brien 1996).

Does this satisfy all the hoops? It mentions the inscriptions, but not the "Colorado Ogham" theory. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.incog.org/Community_Economic_Development/River_Documents/ArkRivMP_Appendix%20C.pdf, note that the foot note says that the dates of these inscriptions are unknown and not well researched.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not even close. It's only a passing mention that says nothing much about the inscriptions, and then only with qualification. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it's not a reliable source. It's a report "not for public use" of a group of people called "The Guernsey Team". For all we know it could be a bunch of kids. (No I don't think it is, but the point is that we don't know.) Not peer reviewed, not published, nothing. It's as unreliable as it gets. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility for merger... merge into Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses which already mentions similar theories at other locations. Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. I fought hard to rid that article of non-notable fringe cruft, and so did Dougweller. And more still needs to be deleted. Nothing that isn't discussed in depth in independent reliable sources belongs there. Or anywhere else in WP, for that matter. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have a unreasonable definition of "reliable". When determining reliability, one has to look at context. A source can be unreliable in the context of verifying a statement of archaeological fact, and yet be perfectly reliable in the context of verifying a statement about what someone's fringe hypothesis is. In an article that is primarily about a fringe hypothesis, we do need to discuss what the fringe hypothesis says... and cite those who say it. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. We have reliable sources for these fringe theories (namely the creators of the theories themselves). What we don't have is reliable sources that show notability for them. Or even the inscriptions. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We barely have confirmation from reliable sources that the inscriptions exist. No real decription or discussion of them. Not enough to make them notable. Nor do we have any confirmation from reliable independent sources that any of the "theories" about them are in any way notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And about merging, they are already mentioned in the target article, so there isn't much to merge. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do they exist, but you can see a photo of them http://fifisrag.blogspot.com/2011/06/ancient-celts-in-oklahoma.html Salon.com used to have an article about it with more recent photos including the guy with the cloth on his head showing it pecked into the stone, but it must have been taken down. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute is not thier existance, it's who carved them.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Til's first link is to a copyvio blog with a pic from Fell's book. Til, when you mention Salon.com, is it the mention here[1] which says "Here's a small write up on a blog I found on Turkey Mountain's Facebook account. Yes. Turkey mountain is on Facebook. *Sigh*http://blogs.salon.com/0002296/stories/2004/02/18/aStrollOnTurkeyMountainPetroglyphsAndLosCave.html" (url doesn't work even through the Internet archive). Dougweller (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since there is no mention of the petroglyphs the few sources I could find written about Turkey Mountain, they should not even be mentioned in that article either. Basically, they are scratchings that look like letters and could have been made anytime.[2] TFD (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That pic you linked is another petroglyph on Turkey Mountain, but not the same one claimed in the sources to be Ogham and Iberic scripts. But there is a pic of that one in that set.[3] Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). But also suggest title of sub section should be changed to "Turkey Mountain petroglyphs", rather than inscriptions - since in the locality they seem to be known as petroglyphs (e.g. see the tourist map). Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result: MERGE, but in effect DELETE. The consensus is clearly not to keep this article. I have moved stuff from here to Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) and will now merge these articles, in effect deleting this article since stuff is now at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma). I know some people simply wanted a delete, but you can review Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) and change it if you think something is wrong there. Aarghdvaark (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the AfD tag removal: there is a variety of opinions here, non-admin closures are not appropriate when the result is not clear cut. Also note that you have cut the AfD short, it has not run it's full course. An admin will come along and close this discussion as appropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Aarghdvaark. There is enough sourcing to justify mention in the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, hadn't realised there was a 7 day wait mandated. But I did think we had reached consensus. I read it that no-one above was for keeping the page, so that left either merge or delete. Since the petroglyphs were already on the Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) page, deleting this page would mean the record of the discussions about them would be lost, whereas merging meant that if the discussion continued at Turkey Mountain (Oklahoma) at least people would know what had been said before. Aarghdvaark (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree that there is a pretty clear consensus for merging. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I think merging is a workable solution. The inscriptions/petroglyphs/graffiti seem note worthy enough to be mentioned (briefly) somewhere in Wikipedia and the article on the mountain seems like the best choice. However, they are not notable enough for their own stand-alone article. It may be that, as time passes, more sources relating to the broader "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses" will mention Turkey Mountain... and if so, it would be appropriate to add a mention in that article as well. Indeed, it may be that as time passes we will have enough sources to support a stand-alone article on the inscriptions... but not at this time. Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a clear consensus. Why merge? What reliable sources do we have? IRWolfie- (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Til is clearly canvassing, this is not at all neutral[4]. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, pretty blatant canvassing. I've added the canvassing template to the discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (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.