Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polonnaruwa (meteorite)


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Polonnaruwa (meteorite)

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

Too much of a fringe topic with (mostly) unreliable sources (Journal of Cosmology) DarklitShadow (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. DarklitShadow (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 00:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Although a lot of the claims around it may be dismissed as nonsense, there does appear to be a fair amount of coverage of it generated across different media. As such although the article needs a really good clean, the topic is in and of itself worth an article I would argue. EvilxFish (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article merits keeping (I haven't really looked into sourcing) it needs renaming. If WP:RS consensus is that it isn't a meteorite, we shouldn't be suggesting it is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's very true, not sure what we should call it though, "Polonnaruwa controversy"? Sorry not good at coming up with names! EvilxFish (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment If kept, I suggest that the article's name be changed to Polonnaruwa stone(s). Paul H. (talk) 15:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing does not reach a sufficient threshold of reliability. We have two okay sources - posts on Phil Plait's blog, which is not exactly a peer-reviewed publication but is generally held in high regard by actual scientists, thus OK. Two indifferent - the Hiru News articles are press releases. All the rest is the original research team around Wickramasinghe churning like mad in a disreputable source, the Journal of Cosmology. And boy did they ever milk that - here's another five publications in that "journal" (same authors, same topic) that never even made it into the article . What there isn't is substantial discussion by others in authoritative, reliable fora, or even widespread (at a GNG level) non-technical coverage. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete, since it appears that significant coverage in WP:RS can't be found. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, due to lack of coverage by reliable sources and lack of general notabiliy. Paul H. (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2022 (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.