Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thiemassassians


 * 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. As unverifiable in reliable sources.  Sandstein  19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thiemassassians

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No verifiable sources. Google searches produce (1) several Wikipedia articles, all of which have been edited by the author of this article, and all or all but one of which owe the mention of Thiemassassians to that author (the one possible exception had the mention inserted by an anonymous IP editor); (2) Wikipedia mirrors; (3) blogs, forums, facebook, and other unreliable sources. There seems to be no verifiable coverage of this in reliable sources. An editor has suggested that this may be a hoax, but if it isn't then it is certainly non-notable and probably "original research". Google scholar produces nothing at all relating to this, which is surprising. (PROD was removed without comment anonymously.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Historical and archaelogical evidence has been provided. I refer the reader to the sources section.Tamsier (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete There does not appear to be anywhere that actually uses the term Thiemassassians. noq (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Those who are calling for it to be deleted should perhaps google the word "Thiemassas". Although a lot is not available on google, there are indeed reliable sources and they provide direct link to Serer history and people.  Just because something is not visible in Google/ in huge numbers, does not mean it is false.  I call for this article to be Accepted and time permitting, for this article to be developed and given the merit it deserves just like any article on Wiki.  Tamsier (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I just did. Of the 6 results returned, 1 is to the Wikipedia article. 2 seem to be duplicates of each other, 2 are bad links. So that leaves 2 hits. Both of those hits mention the word but not in the context that the Wikipeia article uses it. noq (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As per Noq. Doublechecking Ghits, the term does not appear to be used by anyone. Edward321 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2011 (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.