Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cat Stones


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Cat Stones

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to fail WP:RS, and indeed WP:V. Article has existed since 2007. The "Cat Stones" is the name for some boulders on Rishworth moor in West Yorkshire (geograph photo). However, I've been unable to find evidence for the remaining content on this page. I've Google-searched the three sites given in the "references" and they seem to contain nothing on these "cat stones". I can't find a single book or webpage which verifies that these boulders have anything to do with barrows or burial chambers. Pasicles (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't tell if this entry passes or fails WP:NGEOG because NGEOG is so poorly written. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete (possibly userify)  -- At best this is a minor archaeological site. The three alleged references are general archaeological sources, two of them probably little better than blogs, but I cannot find the subject in them.  As a matter of policy, we do not have pages on every listed building, not should we have one on every archaeological site.  This does not sound like an important site to me.  Some of the supporting text wreaks to me of puff.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * I still day delete -- a wholly unverified article, allegedly on an archaeological monument. For all I know it could be a HOAX.  Even if it is not that, it is clearly NN.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 12:25, 14 September 2014 (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.