Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passarola

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 redirect to Bartolomeu de Gusmão. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passarola[edit]

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

90% obvious nonsense ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So this is my first AfD - hope I got the process right. In any event, the article makes absurd factual claims - there may be room for some of the content if sources can be found, but only in an article dealing with 'historic mythical flying machines' or something. ‒ Jaymax✍ 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: my first thought was that this article was an obvious WP:HOAX. Looking into it further, it may in fact be an off-wiki hoax. Redirect to Azhar Abidi or Bartolomeu de Gusmão, perhaps? The article at present is written from an "in-world" perspective, but if reliable sources can be found, it may well warrant a stand-alone article. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No hoax, people. Don't confuse the historical account on the claimed invention of the Passarola with a book written around it. For what it's worth, I have even watched a TV docu on the Passorala a few years ago. My vote for merge is based on the fact that there is little and poor information in the current article (thinking of that, it should be a redirect... changing to). However, there is clearly historical/literary interest in this. See, for example: MIT Library/Veil Collection, Princeton historical outline (which calls the Passarola a glider), and many other literary sources. Nageh (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Certainly a hoax as currently written due to absurd claims — first plane to fly...may have been akin to a balloon. If there is an authentic historical article buried under all this silliness, it needs to be restarted from the ground up... Carrite (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it is a reliable article. The name passarola is linked to to Gusmão. Google books has a number of books where the name is discussed in association with Gusmão. The Italian WP also has an article naming the craft as The Passarola, and is written by a different editor. There is this site, [Anniversary] article which describes it 2009 as the anniversary year of the passarola. That is a well respected organisation, and I don't think they would put up an hoax support page. I think this should be kept for the meantime to determine if real sources can be found. scope_creep (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link fail there, could you put that one up again? Carrite (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~Redirect into Bartolomeu de Gusmão. Read up Early flying machines for/against claims presented in the lead. Nageh (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Registering my formal vote (while agreeing that some, but not much, of the content could be merged per above if someone is keen) ‒ Jaymax✍ 13:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC) - Delete with redirect makes sense. ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge per Nageh. East of Borschov 05:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read my comments including sources above? Notability of the term is clearly provided, so even if we decide to delete the current text we should at least redirect to Bartolomeu de Gusmão. Nageh (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bartolomeu de Gusmão which already seems to cover the topic well enough.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:21, 7 September 2010 (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.