Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Europeans in the Philippines

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 History of the Philippines (1521–1571). Any useful content may be merged at editorial discretion from the page history. T. Canens (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First Europeans in the Philippines

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

This fringe-theory article is based on a single source, and even that one source is more than shaky: "[...] it is quite likely that some other Portuguese ship on the China voyage had called before at the Luções [...]". So that's supposed to be enough for Wikipedia to rewrite history books? To me this looks no less fringy than Menzies' 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, which, of course we also do not consider a source credible enough to overrule all other history books. bender235 (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete Regardless of fringiness, it is plainly original research which really would be no more than a paragraph in history of the Philippines in any case. Seyasirt (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I do not regard this as fringe, not is the book on 1421 fringe. The two sources cites are chronicles from the period, which are primary sources, and as such WP:RS. This is thus NOR original research in WP terms. I do not like the present title. Europeans in the Philippines before Magellan might be better. Nevertheless, I have grave doubts as to whether the subject is significant enough to merit an article. We are probably never going to get more than the two quotes, because that is the whole of the evidence. Possibly merge somewhere. This issue is that the Pope divided the world down the Atlantic into Spanish and Portuguese zones, without realising that the world was round and they would meet on the other side of the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Menzies' 1421 clearly is fringe, and is universally regarded as such in academia see Finlay (2004). And as for the Philippines article, the quote from Tomé Pires says no more about the “Luções” than Marco Polo reports about “Zipangu.” Just as Polo hasn't actually been to Japan, Pires' quote doesn't imply any European sailor has been to the Philippines. --bender235 (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment Of course Menzies is fringe (well, more like fiction), but this article does not cite Menzies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of the Philippines (1521–1571). I find that some of the information on the article may be useful in a section on early European expeditions to/or sightings of the Philippines prior to the Spanish discovery under Magellan. However, as there is no solid proof presented that the Pires expedition actually did land on one of the islands (not merely sighting them as the Portuguese also did during the Colonial history of the United States#Early colonial failures, the entire article's lead is therefore WP:OR and should be scrapped .--RioHondo (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did an edit of the lede to remove the simplistic claims, but it is an interesting question, one asked about all of the "new" lands of the Age of Discovery. I think we can have an article that provides what is known about the first contact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Since when does a vague unsourced speculation merit its own Wikipedia article? What's next? Do we create articles like this for every part of the world? First Europeans in Argentina, First Europeans in Australia, ... it's absurd. At the very, very, very top this deserves one sentence in History of the Philippines and that's it. --bender235 (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I am not objecting to a merge, I just want to point out that WP is filled with just such articles as User:Bender235 mockingly imagines; many of them are rather well sourced: List of Westerners who visited Japan before 1868, Theory of the Portuguese discovery of Australia, Papar, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories. There are probably others.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by RioHondo. This has a lot of OR in it, but could be useful as a section at History of the Philippines (1521–1571). WP:FRINGE does not require deletion, but only that WP:UNDUE not be accorded. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 14 August 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.