- 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 redirect to Hingol National Park. I am going rogue and doing a redirect here. I would have said "merge" - however, I looked at the Hingol National Park and basically everything in the Balochistan Sphinx article is already in the Hingol National Park article. Missvain ( talk) 00:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Balochistan Sphinx
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Balochistan Sphinx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable rock formation, only coverage aside from a brief name check in a NatGeo article is in unreliable fringe sources suggesting that it a man-made monument. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete- Unless its notability can be established, it should be deleted. While it does not need to be an actual sphinx (or manmade) to be notable, secondary sources that discuss it in detail and establish its notability are lacking as far as I found. I looked again at Google scholar and found only a couple of papers that it list it among many other features as potential tourist attractions if properly marketed. Searches using JSTOR found nothing in the way of secondary sources attributing any significance to this landform. Searches using Google Books, Google Search, and DuckDuckGo found a tsunamis of primary fringe and tourism sources and a lack of any useful secondary sources. Interestingly, the majority of tourism-related sources that mention the "Balochistan Sphinx" (or the "Lion of Balochistan") typically state that it is a natural rock formation and recommend visiting it not for any historical or cultural significance but because it is a pretty rock formation that resembles the Sphinx. This seems to be its only claim to fame Paul H. ( talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Hingol National Park, of which it is a feature. (see: Wikipedia:GEOLAND) Djflem ( talk) 19:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Hingol National Park. Not enough WP:FRIND sources to justify a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fringe? Robinson, J. P.
"Is The Sphinx of Balochistan Really Just a Natural Rock Formation?". www.ancient-origins.net.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djflem (
talk •
contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Author claims to
reveal suppressed information and hidden history which contradicts these current paradigms of thought regarding the origins and development of Man
, so, yeah, WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Author claims to
- Fringe? Robinson, J. P.
"Is The Sphinx of Balochistan Really Just a Natural Rock Formation?". www.ancient-origins.net.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djflem (
talk •
contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to clear the notability bar, and the content is not worth merging. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As per above it fails to clear the notability bar as of now. Zackdasnicker ( talk) 13:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Djflem ( talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (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.
- 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 redirect to Hingol National Park. I am going rogue and doing a redirect here. I would have said "merge" - however, I looked at the Hingol National Park and basically everything in the Balochistan Sphinx article is already in the Hingol National Park article. Missvain ( talk) 00:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Balochistan Sphinx
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Balochistan Sphinx ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable rock formation, only coverage aside from a brief name check in a NatGeo article is in unreliable fringe sources suggesting that it a man-made monument. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:22, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete- Unless its notability can be established, it should be deleted. While it does not need to be an actual sphinx (or manmade) to be notable, secondary sources that discuss it in detail and establish its notability are lacking as far as I found. I looked again at Google scholar and found only a couple of papers that it list it among many other features as potential tourist attractions if properly marketed. Searches using JSTOR found nothing in the way of secondary sources attributing any significance to this landform. Searches using Google Books, Google Search, and DuckDuckGo found a tsunamis of primary fringe and tourism sources and a lack of any useful secondary sources. Interestingly, the majority of tourism-related sources that mention the "Balochistan Sphinx" (or the "Lion of Balochistan") typically state that it is a natural rock formation and recommend visiting it not for any historical or cultural significance but because it is a pretty rock formation that resembles the Sphinx. This seems to be its only claim to fame Paul H. ( talk) 21:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Hingol National Park, of which it is a feature. (see: Wikipedia:GEOLAND) Djflem ( talk) 19:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to Hingol National Park. Not enough WP:FRIND sources to justify a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 18:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fringe? Robinson, J. P.
"Is The Sphinx of Balochistan Really Just a Natural Rock Formation?". www.ancient-origins.net.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djflem (
talk •
contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Author claims to
reveal suppressed information and hidden history which contradicts these current paradigms of thought regarding the origins and development of Man
, so, yeah, WP:FRINGE. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 14:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Author claims to
- Fringe? Robinson, J. P.
"Is The Sphinx of Balochistan Really Just a Natural Rock Formation?". www.ancient-origins.net.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Djflem (
talk •
contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Fails to clear the notability bar, and the content is not worth merging. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete As per above it fails to clear the notability bar as of now. Zackdasnicker ( talk) 13:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. WP:GEOLAND: Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. Djflem ( talk) 19:17, 13 May 2021 (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.