Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dacian fortress of Pisculești

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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian fortress of Pisculești

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One sentence, an infobox, and no references. You have | Failed | This Universe | 20:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. You have | Failed | This Universe | 20:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot verify this at all, and I note that the linked Romanian article points to a completely different location (though I cannot tell whether they are about the same place). Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative name given in the infobox yields a few sources, such as [1], [2] and [3]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to a list) without prejudice to re-creation if substantive content can be provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Tinosu (archaeological site). Phil Bridger's sources verify that the site exists and as a former populated place it is notable per WP:GEOLAND. I've expanded the article a little with these sources, but since the site was excavated in the late 1800s I imagine most sources will be in Romanian and inaccessible online. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also mentioned in these books. Razvan Socol (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above. It has been shown that there are academic sources covering this topic, but the title may have been mistaken. I really wish that deletion nominators and others who support deletion would come back to the discussion when sources are offered and re-evaluate their position rather than just restate it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GEOLAND Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO, with appropriate rename, plaudits to above editors who found sources showing wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGEO. At first I was dubious that there is more information out there, but appears to be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.