Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mediterranean Cave

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. Sources were found and the nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Mediterranean Cave

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Mediterranean Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG. Can't access the book, but the name suggests that it likely has only passing coverage. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This cave is important, as are the others linked in the Caves of Gibraltar navbox at the bottom of the article . Per the external links I just added: HM Government of Gibraltar Ministry for Heritage; and also National Geographic — Maile (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

  You clearly didn't read that Nat Geo article, because it says that the cave being discussed is off the coast of France. The other article links it's entire content to the website here, but that is a self-published blog. Neither of these are a reliable source.

  Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I may have found a source: , which was cited by another source . PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 09:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

That source is primary. Topic fails WP:GNG even if the book has significant coverage. Delete. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 09:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I've only looked for ten minutes and I can see its notability by reference to the government, the illustrated London News, and a noted academic. There seems to be insufficient research before the nomination. Being an unreliable source isnt catching. Just because (for instance) The Times quotes a blog it doesnt then write off its long history or reputation for reliability. Victuallers (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You've shown up in a bunch of these, say something like this, and then don't link your sources. I'm happy to withdraw noms if I think I'm wrong, but please provide sources and don't just tell people the exist. If I could have found them, I wouldn't have nominated! I also don't appreciate the bit about insufficient research. Also, if the Times lifted all its words nearly word for word from the blog, and then published as fact, I would never quote that, because its basically just the blog. A good source can still produce sloppy journalism.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment Only because there are a "bunch of these". The blog that gets quoted by the Times (say) becomes more notable. Sure mistakes happen but we AGF good sources. If the government expert websites are quoting someone then they think s/he is notable than we usually assume - and they may be right. The sources you requested are quoted in the article. Sorry if you "don't appreciate" but there are a "bunch of these". Victuallers (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Just because I can't find sources doesn't mean I didn't do enough research. It just mean that I only know so much about it. It's not shocking that someone with 165k edits has better research abilities than me, and it's not cool to assume that I didn't do a before. Just point something out without the attitude, that's all.

As a side note, those are excellent sources and I think I can get at least a B class article out of them. Changing to keep, per sources I couldn't find.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Striking my delete. Thanks Victuallers. PrinceTortoise (he/him) ^{(poke • inspect)} 01:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I think that I am allowed to withdraw. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Meets GNG and WP:NATFEAT. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2024 (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.