Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medelpad Rune Inscription 18


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Medelpad Rune Inscription 18

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Although most likely Notable... No Content Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is Speedy material, but in consideration of its probable Notability, I thought I would give it the 5Day chance. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  02:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete In general WP is not a guide to runestones. Unless something can be said about this one it should not have an article.  Has the author of the article been contacted? Borock (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * They have been now, yes. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, no information to lose by doing so. It doesn't appear to be a common name (in English) for the rune as all 43 GHits appear to be Wiki mirrors so no way of expanding. TBH, I'm surprised the article has lasted since 2005 seeing as it has never held anything more. Nuttah (talk) 10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If there are reliable sources, they aren't on the web or cited in the article. Looking at the Swedish WP page for it didn't help much either. After spending more time than is reasonable searching the web, the closest thing I found was that what MAY be M 18 is that it is a fake rune stone found in some church. Dendlai (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2009 (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.