Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map

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 Speedy delete, deleted under G7 by User:Fastily. Hut 8.5 19:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netert Mudat Egyptian Scarab Map

[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)

Not notable – possibly a fringe theory or hoax. Of the 8 sources cited in the current version, only two actually mention this artefact. These are in a title called Present Pursuits of the Past, which claims to be an academic journal, but is not listed in any journal databases or library catalogues, and requires readers be invited by another member, pay an annual fee of $275, and "adhere to a strict non-disclosure agreement" to access it, so it is impossible to judge whether it is a reliable source or verify any of the material it's used as a reference for. One of the cited authors is also the creator of the page (User:Paleoarchaeo, formerly User:Nathandloper), who has been adding references to his 'discovery' across related pages. Searches for additional sources only turned up social media posts tracing back to the same person. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no proper sources provided. Seems a hoax. Udimu (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax, everything very sketchy when you can't read the journal in question even. A journal which does not seem to be a real journal at all.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and my comments at the article's talk page. It's a hoax. Or a very creative interpretation of something that also doesn't show up in sources under this name. The cited author is a Creationist by the way. Doug Weller talk 19:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page creator is a known creation science pseudoarchaeologist with ties to the cited author. Warn the user of discretionary sanctions while you're at it. jps (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Spanish article (w:es:Escarabeo Netert-Mudat) in case someone also edits other wikis, as well as related files like File:Netert_Mudat_Scarab_Map_Face.jpg. —Paleo Neonate – 23:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two sources provided that discuss the subject are not reasonably verifiable, do not appear to be published in a reputable journal, and thus constitutes a form of original research. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mr rnddude, PaleoNeonate, Ermenrich, Udimu, and Joe Roe: my enquires at the Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame Facebook page prompted Carl Feagans, an archaeologist, to do some sleuthing. Here's the result.[1] Note that the American Archaeological Assocation was founded by the author of the other source from this stable, P. Waters/Preston Waters. As you may have noticed, they claim to produce a peer-reviewed journal which however doesn't seem to exist in any normal sense, ie no ISSN, no visible presence, Google only finds the two articles used as sources in our article, etc. But this isn't just an ordinary scam. The website's owner is listed as Preston Waters but with a fictitious address and a phone number which is the front desk of Harvard's Peabody Museum. Carl thinks that the name comes from a character in Blank Check (film). He wonders whether the whole purpose of this organisation is to get a couple of articles used as sources, or? In any case, something odd is going on and I think we've been conned by the two editors who edited the article. One hasn't been around for some time, but the main editor last edited 2 days ago. I hope they return and comment. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 16:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Doug. Also, PaleoNeonate posting here brings me to another point: I had initial assumed that "Paleoarchaeo" WAS PaleoNeonate. Could this be deliberate?--Ermenrich (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
many thanksǃUdimu (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, considering the common "paleoarchaeology". —Paleo Neonate – 18:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can consider the direct sources as being self-published in this case (WP:SPS). Other than an ebay store to sell copies, a reddit thread and a few apologetics websites affiliated with the author, this discovery claim fails WP:NOTABILITY. —Paleo Neonate – 18:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My sincerest apologies to everyone. It seems this Mr. Preston Waters who I was contacted by to write up the paper on this scarab (and subsequent Q & A piece) last year may himself not be legitimate. Although I was not paid anything to write the paper, I was told if I wrote it, it would be published in the journal for their organization, of which I was free to join for free the first year and then $275 annually after that. Seemed like a good opportunity to connect with others in the field. I was sent a digital version of the journal (as it seems hyksosneter was too), but had not received anything in print nor access to the full research database he said they were building on the new website, "due to operational issues related to COVID this past year" I was told. That sounded like a valid reason. I've tried contacting this individual over the past few days, and have had no response. I now see their website is down too. Based on the conversations I've seen here and other places, I undertook an investigation into it myself, and as others have stated, also agree this may not be a legitimate journal as I have been led to believe. As such, even though I wrote it and agree with the archaeological findings, I also agree with the motion to delete this article entry for the time being. I would not want an unverified journal as a primary source, as it may not have actually been peer-reviewed like I was told it was. Again, please accept my apologies. I should have done a better job of vetting the journal and organization it seems. Now to make sure I can figure out how to cancel this "membership" so I don't end up getting charged $275. Good looking out Wiki team. Paleoarchaeo — Preceding undated comment added 21:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paleoarchaeo: Do not forget the spanish entryǃ Udimu (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Udimu: he didn't create that, we need someone to take it to their equivalent of AfD. Doug Weller talk 14:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But he's done a good job of removing the sources and asking in edit summaries for the article to be deleted. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: Ah, okay. I did not check who created it, seems they copied and translated. But somebody should go over and tell the spanish wikis that there is a problem.Udimu (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Udimu: User:Joe Roe has tagged it as a hoax, I've made a note on the talk page. Doug Weller talk 17:45, 5 February 2021 (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.