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. ✗plicit 12:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Newfoundland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | 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]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is based on well-regarded sources, including Bailey Diffie’s Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580 and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry on Gaspar Corte-Real. Both sources explicitly discuss Portuguese claims and potential activity in Newfoundland during the early 16th century. These are not fringe sources but are widely recognized by scholars in the field of Portuguese maritime history.

  It is stated in the book that Portugal had claims over the region, and brought goods and slaves from it. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're conflating "Portuguese claims" and "potential Portuguese activity" both here and in the article, which is why there's a WP:PROFRINGE issue at play. I don't think anyone is denying Portuguese interest or claims. Just because there are potential actvities doesn't mean we can assume there are for the purposes of an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry I didn’t make myself clear, in Bailey Diffie’s book it’s clearly mentioned that King Manuel granted formal licenses to explorers like João Fernandes Lavrador and Gaspar Corte-Real to discover and claim land with the promise of rewards. It’s also well mentioned that Portugal had colonial activity, which I’ve mentioned before. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You cannot extrapolate that into a whole article about Portuguese Newfoundland when the academic consensus isn't there. One source that runs counter to scholarship isn't enough to warrant an entire article about a topic. This is essentially a fork of other articles you've written citing pre-columbian contact fringe sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's very little evidence this was ever actually a thing. Fails, WP:GNG Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of reliable sources. A settlement on Cape Breton, yes. Not Newfoundland.Doug Weller talk 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For lack of reliable sources and WP:PROFRINGE POV issues. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, at the best, a WP:CFORK of Gaspar Corte-Real. CMD (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:N, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:OR. As noted above, the article topic is most likely not a thing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even assuming that it's not a fringe theory nor original research (which I don't concede), four very brief mentions on six pages in all of Google Books doesn't constitute significant coverage. Everyone makes mistakes, but if all of your edits here are basically original research, then you are an independent researcher, not here to help build an encyclopedia. We are not a website for that purpose. Bearian (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2025 (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.