Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tidal Impact (2nd nomination)

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Impact[edit]

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

This article has only one reference that is not a primary source. Despite being flagged for a reasonable length of time as requiring citations in order to validate the various claims made within it, none has been forthcoming. This implies that the topic is not as notable as those who created the article believe, and, possibly, that it was placed in Wikipedia to fly a kite and see if it might remain. The topic is not verifiable as notable. It has been to AfD before and the closure specifically allows early renomination for deletion.

A search using the usual channels has not revealed anything except a study made on participants by a university to look at motivations as far as I can recall. This is not a reference for the event itself in a reliable source

I have waited for what I believe is a polite period before renominating it. I made an error and used PROD before. That error has been corrected. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the earlier closure said was "the result was no consensus." -- 202.124.72.254 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier closure also quoted WP:NPASR Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources on Google are either self-published or about tides. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No luck in finding any sources about this that aren't first party. Looking at the previous AFD debate for this article, it seems that this problem was addressed by the article creator that there were none, and unfortunately the response given there is the same. If there are no reliable third party sources available, then there is no place on Wikipedia for the article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2012 (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.