Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology (book)


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology (book)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm completing this nomination on behalf of an IP address that tagged the article for deletion. As of yet I have no opinion in either direction. The article does have some issues and could be edited down for brevity. There are sources, but I have not checked any of them to see if they are discussing the book or are merely listed to back up other facts in the article. Again, I have no opinion either way at this point in time, just completing the nomination. There is some discussion on the article's talk page and the article has been tagged for notability since 2008.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've done some extensive editing from the original version, so anyone interested in seeing the original format of the article can do so here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I see it's used as a reference here, but I am also pulling up a lot of junk hits such as google searches masquerading as academic journals, which is a first for me. There's also the possibility of a language barrier here, as the lead scientist is Russian, the book is mostly about Danish dig sites, among others. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - This book does not remotely reach notability. The search ["Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology" -wikipedia -translation review -"write your review" -amazon -wn] gets just 55 hits, mostly nonsense. There are a few citations (e.g. in 'The Detection of Human Remains' by Edward Killam) but we're nowhere near the threshold here. A worthy book but not notable as a stand-alone article. Could possibly add a bibliography ref to Magnetometer in place of the existing "Further information" link there.Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient notability as yet. May increase later. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. To pass WP:GNG we would need multiple published reviews, preferably in high profile venues. One review on a web site isn't good enough. I searched Google news and Google scholar looking for more but didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to one of the authors (which is where the notability might lie, if there is any notability here). If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 4 December 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.