Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Niven Tablets


 * 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 Keep by Moving to William Niven. Cbrown1023 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Niven Tablets

 * — (View AfD)

Fails verifiability WP:V; almost no Google hits. The article claims they no longer exist. How do we know this, or the cited book, isn't a hoax? Akihabara 12:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Apparantly the book is real. However someone needs to verify this article by getting a copy and dredge up other stuff. MER-C 13:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't doubting the existence of the book. I was referring to its contents being a hoax. In other words, assume the book discusses the subject as claimed.  What else do we have for verifiability?  I don't see anything, so the article fails WP:V. Akihabara 17:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment A Google search without the "" returns plenty of relevant hits, some of which may be reliable enough. One Night In Hackney 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. Looking through these doesn't convince me that the tablets should have an article, but it does persuade me that Niven would be an appropriate subject for an article- e.g.  So, I could support the solution proposed by Dhartung and Bejnar below.--Kubigula (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I think the real problem here is notability. It doesn't seem like this created much of a stir at the time or since. --Brianyoumans 18:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but move to William Niven. He has a Handbook of Texas Biography entry and there are books from major and scholarly publishers. The man is probably more interesting than this one incident in his life. --Dhartung | Talk 22:27, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If it's a hoax, it's not a very popular one. Practically nothing about this on Google. The Jersey Devil... now that was a hoax! Bourne 23:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep then Merge The tablets would be notable if they still existed, but they were lost more than 50 years ago. The little we know about them is appropriately placed in a new William Niven article.  --Bejnar 01:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as silly hoax. Complete bollucks!. Edison 06:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to article on Niven per Dhartung and Bejnar.--Kubigula (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Delete per above valid verifiability and notablity concerns.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Or,
 * Move to William Niven. There is a reasonable amount of information available on him, and some information available on the Tablets. One Night In Hackney 10:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - but move to William Niven - the fact that there's a whole book on Niven suggests that he is objectively notable - per Dhartung. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:18, 7 January 2007 (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.