Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Nejd, Sultanate of Oman

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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Nejd, Sultanate of Oman[edit]

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

the article was created by the author of one of the sources. Fails WP:GEOFEAT and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author (User:Pyule/Paul Alan Yule) is also an established expert on the archaeology of Southern Arabia, so I don't see any cause for concern there (see WP:SELFCITE). In my experience excavated archaeological sites are almost always notable, because by nature they are the subject of multiple peer reviewed sources, albeit ones that may be difficult to find. I haven't been able to specifically verify the sources cited in the article, as it seems 2 of 3 aren't online and the other one is a 550 page thesis I don't fancy reading through, but in the absence of a more compelling deletion rationale I'm willing to take them on faith. My mistake. This source is available online (behind a paywall) and includes several pages on this site. – Joe (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi this is a source that was written by the creator of the article himself. GNG requires multiple reliable sources. I could find nothing else concerning this site that attests to its notability. This seems like a case refspam which specifically says "Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work". Dom from Paris (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the author is an established expert in the field, as well as the main investigator of this site, so there is no reason to discount papers written by him. That particular source was published in Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Wiley–Blackwell. There are more sources cited in the article, which are less easy to verify, but which I see no reason to question. – Joe (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the German language source (the only other that is not written by the article creator) there is no mention of this site unless it has another name in German. In a before search I found nothing on this subject. If it is notable should there not be more sources than those written by the person that discovered the site? I may have totally misunderstood the idea of refspam but I cannot believe that it is ok no matter how well you are respected you are to create articles about your own work and reference your own publications as the sole proof of notability. Doesn't this pose a problem of conflict of interest? Dom from Paris (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully trust the search facility in PDF documents. Maybe @Azd0815: can help us out with a page reference? – Joe (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Joe Roe and WP:TROUT Dom (per this and a related AfD) - this is clearly a notable site. Parsecboy (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable geographical feature with sufficient solid references. Invalid reason for deletion. Nominator should read WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL1 to prevent this kind of blind misnomination in the future. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to have corrected the points mentioned my critic regarding al-Negd, Oman: I entered an image of the coin which was found, the page number of my publication in Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy, a separate citation by the National Museum, and the date when a team visited the site. I point out that the find is new, only made in 2014 and published in 2016. If this does not suffice the director of excavations, Khamis al-Asmi, was present and other witnesses, who can be contacted if further doubt exists. I am busy correcting other points (Lizq) which my critic has cavelled. I am grateful for your help.Azd0815 (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2018 (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.