Talk:Shanay-timpishka

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Janilin Bappi 09:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This river, Shanay-timpishka, is still a mystery due to the lack of scientific experimentation and Andrez Ruzo is working on it. In various platforms like Ted-Talk, this topic was presented and please visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4N2SxUZwiU for further information about this river.

I removed the speedy delete myself as it does seem to have had some coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The language of this article still reads rather credulous and takes Mr Ruzo's words uncritically, but then he is the only person who appears to have both heard of this legend and studies the river. There has been no independent (as far as I can find) examination of this river, just third party reporting of his claims. Frankly it still reads like a bit of a hoax to me, but I have no RS saying it is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I miss the words expressing my feelings about this idea. This phenomen is a fact. Full stop. You may have e look to the german article, there are several references, e.g. [www.spktum.de] and [www.welt.de], and there was a recent report about this river in german TV ZDF. I wonder that thwere should be no other english references than this single author, and a google query has a lot of hits.

So you may remove the article but you cannot remove the fact! The only thing you might achieve by deletion is snubbing the authors and their emngagement to report widely unknown things, and making their work just some waisted time. I know that Wikipedia must shield herself from fake news, but a better thing than just deletion in an act of ignorance should be investigation. So you may delete this article by just one click if you want to continue driving away the authors, not only of this article but all the others who do not like to risk waisting their time. --Ernsts (talk) 09:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I did investigate, and as the OP pointed out no one has actually examined this apart form one person. So three is no independent confirmation, as such I have suggested this is merged with the article about him (as this also seems to be all he is notable for).Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick comment :-). So you may leve the not just as a reminder to look for confirmation as fact or as a hoax. So if it was a hoax the german TV report was also fake news which was a scandal then!--Ernsts (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What is a "not just".Slatersteven (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my last update was garbled. I should read twice ;-) What I wanted to say was:

Thanks for your quick comment :-). So you may leave the note just as a reminder to look for further confirmation as fact or as a hoax. So if it was a hoax the german ZDF TV report and spektrum report also both were fake news which was a scandal then, and not just an inner-wikipedia affair! And as the Archaeoraptor thing shows, this may not be imposible. BTW, I personally think it might be possible just as there are a lot of black smokers in the deep sea (however those are near to hot material deep in the earth), but I wonder as there is no vulcanic atcivity nearby so it is an open question what causes the hot temperature. BTW: today is in Germany hoax day, I don't know about this use in english speaking countries. Anyway the story was reported earlier it should be taken serious. Honestly, if the story was launched today I would not believe it, especially looking at nationalgeographic--Ernsts (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we maybe foruming this. As I have now removed the speedy delete any further discussion about notability should be on then AFD talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree. For the moment doubts and their reasons (just one single source) might also be documented in the article. If it was really a hoax the story was so big (NG, ZDF, sprktrum, welt) that this hoax story might have to be documented just like the archaeoraptor. Let's see how it develops.--Ernsts (talk) 10:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Recordings of the river have been made to capture the shamanic spirit of these waters. It is for great importance to those people (curanderos/curanderas) that study the medicines of the plants around the river. The sounds bring you in a deeper contact to the river. The recordings are on Spotify, Amazon, Itunes etc: https://open.spotify.com/album/2JmllU6yqw93oAVE8khGln?si=Ow2EYBraRuaZjHNqSW-Uxg — Preceding unsigned comment added by The White Arrow (talk • contribs) 14:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)