Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Merika
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
La Merika[edit]
Unreferenced and speculative at best (Note that requests for references and citations have been in place for over a month with no responce). Much of this seems to be Original Resarch. Without any clue as to who came up with the theory or who supports it we can not tell if it is notable or not. Blueboar 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep from a Google search, the theory seems to exist, and has been referenced in multiple places on the Web, and in print, for example, a The Guardian article [1]. That's not much, but still barely worth keeping, methinks. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no references added to the article. It remains unsourced. Blueboar 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added references. They're weak, in the sense that they're relatively off-hand mentions of the theory in each case, the books and article are not really devoted to this theory per se - but, again, I think they're enough, given that our article is relatively critical of the theory. If you don't want to search for the two books, which may be a bit obscure, you can search for "La Merica" using Amazon "search in this book" and Google Books. I've provided a link to the latter, it gives info for many items in the article on one page. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Better... but these are general references. Much of the material is still uncited and borders on OR... all highly speculative. I would still vote for delete unless major improvements are made. Blueboar 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh, you're demanding. It's not as if we're going to be facing a libel suit and need to go by the very strict standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or something. It's just a theory, a fairly hokey theory, and our article says as much - I haven't checked the edit history in detail, but wouldn't be surprised if you wrote much of the criticism section, if so, good work. It's not controversial mainly because no one takes it seriously. But it's also an existing theory that is referred to; therefore, as the world's largest encyclopedia, we really should say something on it. We're by no means endorsing the theory, we're just saying it exists. The references clearly say there is such a theory. If you want to delete individual unreferenced items from the article, fine, but the article as a whole should stay. (By the way, then you really should get a copy of the Templar books, rather than just rely on the Amazon search.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that none of the references are used to cite any given statement, I could delete the entire article line by line, and we would be left with a blank page. Far easier to simply delete the article as Non-notable. As to the "the theory exists" argument... Just because a whacko theory exists does not make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The theory has to be notable and subscibed to by more than a few authors. See WP:NOT.
- Gosh, you're demanding. It's not as if we're going to be facing a libel suit and need to go by the very strict standards of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or something. It's just a theory, a fairly hokey theory, and our article says as much - I haven't checked the edit history in detail, but wouldn't be surprised if you wrote much of the criticism section, if so, good work. It's not controversial mainly because no one takes it seriously. But it's also an existing theory that is referred to; therefore, as the world's largest encyclopedia, we really should say something on it. We're by no means endorsing the theory, we're just saying it exists. The references clearly say there is such a theory. If you want to delete individual unreferenced items from the article, fine, but the article as a whole should stay. (By the way, then you really should get a copy of the Templar books, rather than just rely on the Amazon search.) AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Better... but these are general references. Much of the material is still uncited and borders on OR... all highly speculative. I would still vote for delete unless major improvements are made. Blueboar 14:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Added references. They're weak, in the sense that they're relatively off-hand mentions of the theory in each case, the books and article are not really devoted to this theory per se - but, again, I think they're enough, given that our article is relatively critical of the theory. If you don't want to search for the two books, which may be a bit obscure, you can search for "La Merica" using Amazon "search in this book" and Google Books. I've provided a link to the latter, it gives info for many items in the article on one page. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Still no references added to the article. It remains unsourced. Blueboar 23:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- (unindenting) Actually, being subscribed to by a few authors is what makes it notable. "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources." Wikipedia:Notability. That's what a few authors are. And by actually deleting the article line by line [2], including the things that have been referenced in the very references I just provided, you're verging into WP:POINT. Did you notice the part where I wrote that if you want to claim that the books don't back the facts you really should read the books? You apparently didn't even follow my Google Books link, because just that page backs most of the article. Please restore your edits. If you think the article should be deleted entirely, you've done the right thing by starting the AFD, wait for consensus to agree with you. Blanking the article content is not the way to do it. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK... you obviously care enough about this article for it to be kept for now... so the nomination is withdrawn for the moment ... however, to keep me from re-nominating it, you are going to have to put a lot of work into the article. Specific citations are one item on the list... Let's take this discussion to the article's Talk Page (I will copy it there)... and we can work on seeing if my concerns can be met. Blueboar 18:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest simply changing the word from Theory to hypothesis till there is enough citable evidence to support it. The word hypothesis supports this much better and can resolve this whole argument. I do have to say that there are places asking for citations that do not need it. I would ask the editor, and challenger to go back and rethink if you want regurgitation from some supposedly qualified article, or if you want the evidence to be substantial and still follow the hypothesis base.
- I have no problem with changing "theory" to "hypothesis", but that does not solve the problem with this article. The primary problem has to do with the fact that the article does not meet the standards set out in WP:V and WP:NOR. The article does not even say who came up with this theory or hypothesis. Since starting this AfD, several editors have posted to the talk page, expressing a desire to keep the article, but none of them have been able to supply even a basic citation to verify the statements. Note that I am not looking for "proof" that the claims made in the article are "true"... I am talking about simply providing citations to show that the claims even exist! In fact, no one seems able provide a citation to show that the Title term "La Merika" exists! Who coined this term? Without a citation, even the TITLE of the article becomes OR. Blueboar 14:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to have to reinstate this AfD nomination... discussion on the talk page has not led to any progress on the reasons why it was nominated in the first place. Again, serious issues with WP:V and WP:NOR. Blueboar 15:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This theory seems bonkers (and I've never heard it until tonight) but under WP:FRINGE "Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even a debunking or disparaging reference is adequate, as it establishes the notability of the theory outside of the small group of adherents." Simon Jenkins in the Guardian surely meets this. JASpencer 20:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no. The Jenkins article does mention the idea that Henry Sinclair may have sailed to America before Columbus, but only in passing - as part of a larger article on other theories. He does not discuss some of the key parts of this theory (such as how the name "America" is supposedly derived from "La Merika"). It is a start, but not enough. and it does not solve the key part of WP:FRINGE ... the part that says such articles should be referenced extensively. This article isn't.
- Delete - There doesn't appear to be any appetite to actually substantiate anything other than existence. In that sense it's not sufficiently notable to justify keeping.ALR 20:34, 4 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.