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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Farrukh

[edit]

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

Not clear to me why Wikipedia should host a hoax (the External Links section shows that this page is a hoax). Shii (tock) 03:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an unlikely claim repeated on many unreliable sites. While the Wikipedia article in its current form (thanks to User:Graham1973) prudently informs us that ibn Farrukh is "mythical", there are not enough reliable sources to make this a even a notable myth/hoax. (See the blog post mentioned in the article (section "External links") and the source given there, "La supuesta expedición de Ben-Farroukh a las Canarias".)
Should one reliable source be found describing 'ibn Farrkuh''s discovery of America (not only his travels in the Canaries) even as a hoax, then redirect and mention briefly as a hoax at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact#Arab.
הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 05:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it fails WP:GNG, period. Bearian (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found one apparently reliable source that seems to mention the myth of Ibn Farrukh's discovery of America, as well as a reference to the above-mentioned refutation: World Islam (Vol. 4), p. 317, (edited?) by Andrew Rippin. Would that suffice for my proposed redirect? הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 20:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC) Changed the link to point to the relevant passage. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Good citation. Let's do that. Shii (tock) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, that might not be such a good idea. I've succeeded in maneuvering Google Books' snippet view enough to read the entire paragraph; the author (one Rafael A. Guevara Bazán) of the article (correct title: "Some notes for a history of the relations between Latin America, the Arabs and Islam", pp. 310–18; reprinted from Guevara Bazán, Rafael A. (1971). "Some notes for a history of the relations between Latin America, the Arabs and Islam". The Muslim World. 61 (4): 284–92.) does not make the less likely claim that Ibn Farrukh discovered America—he only repeats the alleged legend of visiting the Canary Islands, mentions doubts as to its authenticity, and proceeds to discuss the possibility of medieval Arabs discovering America. Thus, we have no reliable sources even for a brief mention as a hoax. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 00:18, 16 January 2015 (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.