Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Icelandic Expedition

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British Icelandic Expedition

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

Absolutely no sources to indicate significance or importance. Search reveals no coverage by reliable sources either. Coderzombie (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching is somewhat complicated by the existence of a very different British-Icelandic Expedition to Vatnajökull (in 1977, to perform radio echo surveys of subglacial geography), and potentially a third such event in 1981. The 1989 event that is the current article topic is essentially nonexistent in reliable sources. I don't think there's any benefit to conserving the title for the 1977 expedition, either. This Journal of Glaciology article isn't sufficient by far to demonstrate notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even though there are some sources in Icelandic for an British-Icelandic Expeditions to Vatnajökull, they are not enough for GNG. Focusing only on Icelandic news published in the same years as the expeditions themselves, two Icelandic sources are about the 1977 expedition and one about the 1989 expedition that the article is about. The 1989 source even contains so little information that it adds nothing to the article.--Snaevar (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until we can find a solid source, this cannot stay. With a weak source, a good alternative would be to redirect to Vatnajökull. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge in Vatnajökull — If sources can be found for an entry in Vatnajökull. —Paleo Neonate - 17:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 8 June 2017 (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.