Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isla Falta Calzado

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Isla Falta Calzado

Isla Falta Calzado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Almost all the information in the article is false or unverifiable. Some examples:

1. There are no independent hits on Google for the name, only links or references to the Wikipedia page. There is an actual tiny island at the location specified, but it is nameless on maps.
2. There are no citations for the history of the island. It is claimed that the name is based on an indigenous custom, but there were no indigenous people living in the area when the island was formed in 1913, and there are none there now. The indigenous Embera communities on Lake Gatun are at the opposite (eastern) end of the lake, and were founded in the 1950s.
3. The article claims the island is a nature sanctuary for the "Galledemia Woodpecker." No such species exists, and the link goes to the general Wikipedia page on woodpeckers. The island is only about 100 m long and much too small for a nature sanctuary.
4. It is claimed that a research center on the island was destroyed by Hurricane Mitch in 1998, but Mitch never came near Panama, but hit Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua instead.
5. It is claimed that the University of Panama has a center on the island to test solar power and water purification systems, but the article cited makes no reference to the island.
6. In the section on Wildlife, the article claims that the Isthmian Alligator Lizard was once found there. This species has only been found in Costa Rica and westernmost Panama, and has never occurred in the region. It also claims the island has nationally important numbers of Harpy Eagles, Dusky-capped Flycatchers, and Blue-winged Teal. The island is much to small to support any population of Harpy Eagle, and the latter two species are very common throughout Panama.
7. The section on Further Reading cites "Falta Calzado: the Island of lost shoes by T.A. SultaZ (part of the Islands of Panama series. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1996)" This reference does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeAngehr (talk • contribs) 03:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: indeed nothing to be found anywhere about this topic. See also User talk:DVdm#Isla Falta Calzado - DVdm (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems to be entirely fabricated. Note that the two users who collaborated to create this article concentrated their work almost entirely here and on Isla Tres Perros. That article may also be worth investigating for the same reason. Neither user has edited since 2012. Gricehead (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, user GeorgeAngehr already left a message at Talk:Isla Tres Perros. This island has a least this in the further reading section as evidence that it does indeed exist. - DVdm (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• There are false claims in the article but the island does seem to exist in Panama.[1]--Oakshade (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Google Maps does not seem to be a reliable source, given that anyone can add a missing place. I have never done it, and I don't intend to sign up and try it, but can anyone just add anything anywhere? - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Increasingly clear that we've been hoaxed. Name of island not found in Ref 1 or Ref 2 (in which Pages 50-55, referenced, are in a chapter about "The Culebra Cut", which is at the other end of the canal). In the case of Tres Perros, though, if this has indeed been seen on a (pre-internet) map of 1976 and if the map was published by a reliable source, this should be referenced and the article kept as a real geographical feature, with unverified and dubious content dealt with by editing processes: talk page, tagging or outright removal: Noyster (talk), 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

References

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.