Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aluminium wedge of Aiud


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aluminium wedge of Aiud
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable; article itself mentions only a single article was written about it and it has been tagged since december of 2007. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. According to the article itself, there exists only a single article about it, by a Hungarian paranormal researcher (although it is not mentioned where this article was published). Even assuming that the sources passes WP:RS (which is unlikely), this is a far cry from satisfying WP:N. Even a plain Google search returns only 60 hits, with nothing in GoogleBooks, GoogleScholar or GoogleNews. Nsk92 (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete mainly WP:RS. Note from WikiProject_Paranormal "To seek out and apply verifiable mainstream sources to pages within the projects scope with the aim of A) addressing any issues of verifiability and reliability that have been highlighted in existing entries, and B) ensuring that new entries are of sufficient quality that their verifiability and reliability do not become an issue." I'm not quoting a policy, just showing that even though the article is within the scope of the project I don't think it meets the project's standards. Faradayplank (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete heh, sounds like a wannabe Iron pillar of Delhi. recreate if Reliable sources are found. -Verdatum (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article itself states that there is only one "sole article" on it. No reliable sources provided in the article, and none were found on Google. —  Wen li  (reply here) 00:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.