Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dernatinus

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Consensus rejects this as hoax with questionable sources. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dernatinus

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This whole article smells like a hoax. Infobox claims that Dernatinus lived 50 BC – 90 AD, which is clearly impossible. Claim of a North African travelling to the Americas in the first century is WP:FRINGE at best. A figure born 50 BC (or even one who died c.90 AD) would be one of the earliest written attestations of Jesus and yet Google scholar turns up precisely zero results for Dernatinus. Googling turns up very littleat all for me, and none of the results seem reliable. The book illustrated in the infobox does not seem to exist on worldcat or Amazon or Google books. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Algeria. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Looks like a fringe POV push at best. R Prazeres (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Philosophy. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's definitely a hoax, although I'm not sure if it's blatant or merely obvious. All the sources are blogs, but surprisingly seem to predate the creation of the article by quite a bit, so the author may be more super credulous than deliberately deceptive. Might still be G3able. Has anyone tried? Folly Mox (talk) 02:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I went straight to afd because g3 requires a hoax be "blatant and obvious" which is a pretty high bar and I wasn't sure this met it. Given that nobody has yet made a case to keep the article, I assume an admin could still decide to delete under G3 if they think it does Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The content is to extraordinary to be credible. I checked several of the links cited, most of which were to non-English websites, which in fact said little and cited no primary source. The one that might have led to a primary source required a login that I could not get through. Another link (in English) referred to a "novel": if that is not a mistranslation, it implies a work of fiction. A journey to America at that period reminds me of the Book of Mormon, which I regard as fiction though the LDS church will disagree. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bogus. Non-notable.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:55, 6 November 2023 (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.