It has never been proven either way.

And we have much more accepted and well researched proof of pre-Colombian voyages specifically Viking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows

Yes Vikings visited North America - but the Kensington Stone is fake. Both language and the runes used shows it is written much more recent than the Viking age.

That isn’t factually true it was never confirmed to be fake nor was it confirmed to be genuine the status of it is disputed.

It is not confirmed to be fake in that the hoax perpetrator never admitted to it. But there is no historian who believes it to be true.

So if I find one would that be correct? Again I'm not saying that it's genuine but there is still debate on the authenticity of it, especially some of the modern analysis which shown that some of the previous points of contention like the AVM scribbling was actually using sigla which is correct for medieval norse, fairly recent medieval runic discoveries from Norway also shown that the runic Alphabet on the stone might have been used in Medieval times or at least that there has been a larger variance in runic scribing than once was thought (something between really bad handwriting and really poor spelling)

https://niku.no/2017/11/funn-mystisk-runeinnskrift-bispeborg...

Even if it wasn't fake the viking age ended before 1100 after Norway had been christened.

I haven't said that the origin of the Kensington runestone was Viking, I said that L'Anse aux Meadows which is an undisputed Viking settlement in Newfoundland is proof of Pre-Columbian trans atlantic contact specifically Viking.