Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Portugal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Portugal. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Portugal|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Portugal. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Europe.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Scan for Portugal related AfDs

Scan for Portugal related Prods
Scan for Portugal related TfDs


Portugal

[edit]

Pedro Neves (poker player)

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Pedro Neves (poker player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I agree with the previous AFD: Non-notable player, no WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, no coverage outside niche press. The article appears to be more about the tournament than the article subject. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Newfoundland

[edit]
Portuguese Newfoundland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nonsense article building a mountain out of conjecture. There is no evidence f Portuguese Newfoundland actually being a thing, let alone one warranting an entire article. See the similarly WP:PROFRINGE Luso–Danish expedition to North America AFD for similar discussions, but the editor creating these articles needs to stop adding fringe theories to Wikipedia in a way that looks like historical fact. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luso–Danish expedition to North America

[edit]
Luso–Danish expedition to North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actual meat of the article is covered in Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America. Other than that, this article appears to mostly be presenting a fringe theory as fact at face value. "Ancient explorers" nonsense for the bulk of it. Only not nominating for a speedy delete as I'm worried it may pass some reviewer's very quick smell check. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Warren, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I want to clarify that I did not reference myself on the Didrik Pining page during my research. Instead, I gathered information from multiple independent sources, as you can see in my article.
I also based myself on four theories, not to focus exclusively on Sofus Larsen’s claims. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Every single google result for "Luso–Danish expedition to North America" links to your edits here, which coupled with the lack of evidence for the figures involved and the lack of acceptance of the theory probably means an entire article dedicated to it is unwarranted. It's possible some of your research could expand Didrik_Pining#Alleged_trip_to_America to be more comprehensive, though (making sure not to present fringe theories as competing with the mainstream)? I don't know enough about this topic to be certain. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again, for starters, I’m basing these theories on books, not websites. Merging the article with the one on Didrik Pining doesn’t seem like the right approach since he wasn’t the only voyager involved. I believe it’s better to maintain a main article focused on the expedition rather than combining it with a biography.
Regarding your statement about "presenting a fringe theory as fact at face value", I have labeled the information as "theories" and marked the date section as "debated." I made it clear that I’m presenting various interpretations, not facts. I also believe that the strongly debated part of the expedition is how far did these voyages reach and the date, not the voyagers involved. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that the strongly debated part of the expedition is how far did these voyages reach and the date, not the voyagers involved.
Except that the voyage happened in the first place appears pretty widely rejected by contemporary scholarship. WP:PARITY presents a problem here in taking the topic too seriously for its own article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that while the details of the expedition are indeed debated, the possibility of the expedition itself is not dismissed by all scholars. To prove this I analyzed the book ("The German Discovery of America": A Review of the Controversy over Pining's 1473 Voyage of Exploration) by Thomas L. Hughes.
As stated in the text, "the arguments have been complicated by controversies surrounding the indispensable participation of Pining's presumed Portuguese colleague, Joao Vaz Corte-Real, as well as the more dispensable supposed navigator, Johannes Scolvus." (p.509) This shows that while there is debate about who was involved, there is still room for the possibility of the expedition occurring.
Moreover, it is noted that “Cumulative circumstantial evidence, bolstered by some circular reasoning, led Larsen to his central proposition" (p.509) which supports the idea that there is some scholarly backing for the expedition.
I believe this should be shown in the article, especially as it presents a historical theory supported by multiple sources, even though some elements remain debated, like the exact route or the date. Other historians are mentioned in the text, for example Kirsten Seaver, who disagrees on João Vaz's participation, but agrees on the possibility of an expedition by Pining and Pothorst. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I would like to clarify that while the details of the expedition are indeed debated, the possibility of the expedition itself is not dismissed by all scholars
With the full context this is textbook WP:FRINGE:

The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents.

…

the relative space that an article devotes to different aspects of a fringe theory should follow from consideration primarily of the independent sources. Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles.

We shouldn’t be presenting an extreme minority position in the scholarship, especially one which exists in an extremely common realm for fringe theories as early contacts with the Americas does, as valid unless there’s either a compelling reason to believe it’s of significant benefit to Wikipedia to cover it (such as a major and popular fringe theory). We definitely shouldn’t be presenting three fringe takes and scholarly consensus with equal weight in an article dedicated to a topic that is almost unheard of and, likely, didn’t actually exist. Without that it reads more than a little like trying to “teach the controversy”. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 08:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me address your points.
"The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents."
I’d say that the sources cited are reliable. You can look into the academic backgrounds of Thomas L. Hughes, Kirsten Seaver, and Sofus Larsen, all of whom have credible scholarly reputations. If you believe the sources used in the article are not reliable, it would make more sense to replace them rather than deleting the page entirely or merging with one’s biography.
Additionally, I’ve already clarified that scholars do not widely reject the existence of this expedition. The strongly debated points are about the details. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 10:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is still a fringe theory, falling outside the mainstream, using a term you invented for Wikipedia as the article name. There's always going to be WP:PARITY issues in creating an entire article about filling in the gaps of history with what some conjecture may have resulted in happening. You've done this here and with Portuguese Newfoundland, both of which do not represent the scholarly mainstream of history or the history of those regions, and WP:PARITY will always be a problem. I understand you believe these expeditions happened, but seeing as the scholarly mainstream doe not seem to accept that these voyages have any details fillalbe if they happeed at all, they do not warrant an article here, let alone one which presents extreme scholarly minority opinions as co-equal with the actual historical consensus. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve already addressed the concern about the fringe theory. You can verify the reliability of the sources by checking their academic background. As I mentioned in my previous comment, you are welcome to replace any sources you believe are unreliable.
Regarding your claim that I "invented a term for Wikipedia", the title comes from the book Ancient Explorers of America by Aleck Loker, which states, "a record in the Danish archives makes reference to the joint Portuguese-Danish expedition" (p. 160), and The Portuguese Columbus by Barreto, which notes, "it could only have been on the Luso-Danish expedition" (p. 151). Just to make things clear, I also created a redirect for the article titled Pining expedition, which is also explicitly mentioned within the article. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All the arguments from here are paralleled at the AFD for Portuguese Newfoundland, which is basically a fringe fork.
Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You completely ignored my comment without providing a proper response. In my opinion, the only drastic change that should be made is perhaps the title of the page to include the word "Theory", I’ve already addressed your claims about it being a "fringe theory".
I still don’t believe merging this page with a biography is a good idea. If you disagree, look at pages such as "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia". While it is not a widely accepted theory, it still has its own page. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the this flat out fringe, the Davies source used in the article flat out calls it '[a] concocted [...] outrageous thesis' and that there is no evidance to support it something that mindbogglingly isn't in the article—blindlynx 19:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t believe Davies' criticism of Larsen's work as an "outrageous thesis" is sufficient to classify this as a fringe theory. Criticism of a single interpretation does not invalidate the thesis, especially when other reputable scholars (that I've already mentioned in my discussion with Warren), like Thomas L. Hughes in The German Discovery of America, acknowledge that Larsen’s conclusions are based on cumulative circumstantial evidence.
    Hughes notes that "The Larsen thesis was further bolstered by the fact that both Pining and Corte-Real, soon after their alleged voyage, became strategically placed governors in mid-Atlantic outposts."
    Most of what I’m telling you has already been addressed in my previous discussion with Warren. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is fringe because it over emphasizes the precious little evidence there was for this expedition and flat out ignores that this thin evidence is not taken as definitive by the sources.
    A quick summary: The Hughes paper make no definitive claims of the expedition having have happened one way or another; Davies categorically denies it did; Diffie and company point out there is no evidence for it and state that Ernesto do Canto and Henry Harrisse reject it completely; Loker cites Larsen and a later map, which in turn Vigneras calls 'probably the result of later exploration'. Did i miss anything because none of that is good enough to parent anything more than a mention in the Pining article and certainly not enough to warrant it's own article—blindlynx 21:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In Hughes' book, the theory is not considered as fringe. The verdicts are described as "not proven", which some interpret as "not disproven" or "maybe yes, maybe no." While Diffie and the others acknowledge the lack of evidence, Loker clearly explains how Larsen arrived at his conclusions. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fringe part is that this article in no way reflects the sources—blindlynx 15:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The article presents both sides, with scholars who support the theory and those who reject it, that doesn’t make it fringe. I already suggested improvement too. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending rewrite. Separate articles on fringe views are generally considered fine given two prerequisites: A) There must be a substantial basis of sources. That seems halfway okay to me here. The multiple book sources show a variety of coverage from the pro-fringe side - what is missing is the general criticism that is presented at Didrik Pining#Alleged trip to America. Taken together, these two appear to show that there is enough coverage here for an article. B) It must be made clear what the mainstream take on the topic is. The article wildly fails in this respect. You have to read halfway down before you might get the notion that this does not represent the accepted historic record; because the critical mainstream sources have been omitted, and because the lede brazenly states it as a an uncontroversial fact. This needs to be fixed. But given that it can be fixed, because the material is there, I don't see why we can't have an article on the topic. Our Category:Pseudohistory is extensive. - The novel coinage in the title seems debatable and should probably be avoided. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the thoughtful response. I agree that deleting the article or merging it with a biography isn’t the right approach. As I’ve previously mentioned, articles like the "Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia" exist despite being widely disputed, it shows that speculative theories with sufficient scholarly discussion can warrant their own articles.
    I also support improving the article by maybe replacing weaker sources with those that have a more known academic background and by reconsidering the title to clarify the thesis. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you may need to read WP:BLUDGEON:

    Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view. It is typically seen at articles for deletion, request for comment, the administrator incidents noticeboard, an article talk page, or even another user's talk page. A person replies to many "!votes" or comments, arguing against that particular person's point of view. The person attempts to pick apart many comments from others with the goal of getting each person to change their "!vote".

    Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m just trying to make my points clear. You might want to take a look at my reply to your statement, which you haven’t responded to yet. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as sources appear to be WP:PROFRINGE and the article is, as a result, an in-universe apologia for a fringe theory. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the article is not pro-fringe. I’ve already addressed these concerns above and made it clear that this is presented as just a theory. I’ve already suggested improvements to the article. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that having an article you worked on taken to AfD can be frustrating but WP:BLUDGEONing the conversation will not actually help you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assure you this isn’t an attempt to dominate the conversation. I’m simply presenting my viewpoint. It seems that most are against the article, and I’m offering my perspective because many may not have read my previous discussion with user Warren. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: More than one third of all posts at this AfD, Jaozinhoanaozinho, are from you. You have posted your opinions multiple times here, those opinions are perfectly clear, and you have been warned about WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion by two different editors. It is now time (past time, actually) for you to stop responding here and to let this AfD run its course. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (maybe Draftify. Maybe). This article will only be suitable for enWP when, and if, the specific topic receives notable and sustained coverage/treatment in additional reliable, independent, secondary sources; i.e., sources that are not credulously pro-fringe. Those sources seem to be absent or non-existent, and so the article fails WP:N. Even then, the article will require substantial editing to remove the pro-fringe content presented in Wiki voice. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Others

[edit]

Categories

Deletion reviews

Miscellaneous

Proposed deletions

Redirects

Templates

See also

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Portugal&oldid=1267286833"