Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacian fortress of Ponor


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Dacian fortress of Ponor

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Ridiculously short article that fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. No hits of reliable sources on google books or search. No article in Romanian is a bad sign. Template:Dacian cities lists dozens of these ultra stubs, but I won't do anything with them until we see just one. -1ctinus📝 🗨  16:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ro:Cetățile Ponorului is the Romanian-language article (or, at least, the only plausibly-notable topic of a similar name). Walsh90210 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That may be a step towards salvaging the article, but the Romanian article also cites no sources, andseems to be about a cave rather than a fortress :( -1ctinus📝  🗨  17:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "cave"/"ruined fortress" difference is somewhat concerning; but for a micro-stub like this it is easily dismissed as confusion by the enwiki article creator. As far as rowiki sourcing, there are some websites in the article (like ); it might not be enough to demonstrate notability but is enough to verify that something exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: For all it's worth, that's not a cave, but rather, a ponor. Whence the name. Turgidson (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, Geography,  and Romania.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  18:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * delete without prejudice against recreation of a sourced version. It' shouldn't be AfD's job to research and write these articles; it should be the author's job. We are not losing anything by deleting these completely unverifiable articles, and we waste too much time on these. Mangoe (talk) 21:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Walsh90210 (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2024 (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.