Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The thrown stones

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article after new sources were found. If you are seeking a rename or merger, please start a discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The thrown stones[edit]

[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)

Unsourced, seems partially promotional, searches return no relevant results... fails WP:GNG. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any RS to show that this passes WP:GEOFEAT. Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find several good references using the corresponding article in the Italian Wikipedia at it:Pietre lanciate. Perhaps the Eglish article could be expanded with text from the Italian article, but I think that the references that now appear in the article are sufficient to show notability. I don't speak Italian, but I recognized that I should look for Italian-language sources about a geological feature in Italy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing seems sufficient to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to Bolsena and redirect.~~ I tried. I really, really tried but just couldn't find enough to save this one. I spent about over an hour on this. There are reliable references but they are insufficient to establish notability; they will support a paragraph in our Bolsena article. (Bolsena is the nearby town).

The "Legend" section of the article - nice story but I've found zero to support it - not even junk sites. The legend appears in the Italian version without a reference, either. I deleted it.

Some tourist sites refer to The Thrown Stones as part of a UNESCO Geopark or Heritage Site; it doesn't appear on UNESCO"s site with either the Italian or English name.^[1][2] UNESCO also has an interactive world map of all its sites; there were no UNESCO geological sites in this area.

In all my searches, I checked the Italian name ("Pietre lanciate") as well as the English name. "Thrown stones" is so generic a search term as to generate a bazillion false hits, so I constrained the search by adding Bolsena to it. Here are my search results^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]} - either false hits, passing mentions or unreliable commercial tourism sites.

I found reliable results using Google Scholar but the papers I found just made passing mention of the Thrown Stones.^[16]

This appears to be a paper describing volcanic features in the Province of Viterba; I think its part of the application process to get the Lazio/Viterba area (not just our Thrown Stones) recognized as a UNESCO geological site for its volcanic features. It mentions the Thrown Stones.

This is a decent article about the Thrown Stones that's not obvious junk; if you believe it's from a reliable site, it's probably enough to establish notability. I don't think it's from what we would call a reliable source but others should look at it. I read it in translation.

This is just a commercial tourist web site. This may be an official local government page about the Thrown Stones but it's just a paragraph of puffery junk.

Here are the Italian article's 4 refs:

Page about the Lazio volcanic region. Mentions the Thrown Stones.^[17]
http://geoparcotuscia.provincia.vt.it/pdf/schede/03_Descrizione_Pietre%20Lanciate.pdf could be the smoking gun except the geoparcotuscia.provincia.vt.it sever won't respond. I did multiple searches on the general provincia.vt.it domain and kept coming back to this unhelpful empty page. My guess is that this was for the UNESCO initiative and that maybe it died at some point.
This geology paper gives a good overview of the volcanic region. It mentions the Thrown Stones.
http://geoparcotuscia.provincia.vt.it/pdf/doc/GeositiTuscia.pdf was another non-responding provincial page.

Sorry for the length; this was a big, empty rabbit hole. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Visviva and WP:GEONATURAL. I suggest renaming "Pietre lanciate" -- that's where I found the most references. Even the junky English-language tourism sites call it that. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, with great thanks for A. B.'s very thorough work. Although it was correctly noted above that this probably doesn't meet WP:GEOFEAT, the applicable standard here is actually WP:GEONATURAL, which I think is met here, since this is a named natural feature about which we can provide more than bare statistics. That said, a merge could be perfectly cromulent. I think Lake Bolsena might be a better target in that case. -- Visviva (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2023 (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.