Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoniev Caves- Sacred place


 * 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. I've deleted this because it's actually a straight copy of its sources, especially this one. There's probably an article here, but this is just a copyvio. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Antoniev Caves- Sacred place

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The article consists of silly claims sourced to silly websites: "Chernigiv conceals as many secrets as Egypt’s Valley of the Kings... In 1970, the famous Black Monk, an apparition in a long black robe, made his first appearance … Most visitors to the caves experience increased vitality, a feeling of euphoria and the correction of abnormal heart rhythms, so from time immemorial, people have traveled there to be cured of various ailments... A group of archeologists brought electromagnetic instruments to search for underground voids, and the instruments started breaking and giving unrealistic results..." Two years have produced no reliable sources. Ghirla-трёп- 19:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The writing might be "silly", but it does appear to pass WP:NOTABILITY as there is significant coverage, in non-Ukrainian languages even.  The Ukrainian WP page appears to be much better written. (See g-translation here.)--Oakshade (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is not an issue here. The article is misleading, inaccurate, and appears to violate WP:NOR. The cited websites are not reliable at all. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete unless pruned and totally rewritten: The lead section contain only one relevant sentence: it is a mainly a mini-essay which does not sum up the body of the article. The literary style is terrible.  Some claims seem not to square with the sources, none of which are really WP:RS and the FACTS section seems to be a "cut and paste" job. The sources given do not prove notability but I suspect that this could be established. Jpacobb (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the apparently sanely written native language version of this article. It clearly needs editing attention, but there's clearly an article somewhere and this seems like a good-faith attempt to write it. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to competent recreation per WP:TNT.  Sandstein   13:16, 30 September 2012 (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.