Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kartan stone tools

:{{la|Kartan stone tools}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Kartan stone tools}})

Unclear assertion of notability and appears to be a WP:COATRACK for fringe theories. I concede that the single gBooks citation provided does satisfy "significant" coverage (about 1 page), but at the end of the day it is an article about a type of rock that does not assert why that type of rock is notable. I'm not an anthropologist, so I went for AfD rather than PROD. Yeti Hunter (talk) 10:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as per recent updates. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep "Kartan industry" (which would tend to be the term used in archaeological literature - {{find|Kartan industry}}) produces a range of sources. Looking at the Google Scholar hits, however, R J Lampert appears to be regarded as one of the main experts on the topic but also to be making some claims about it (including ones which the nominator has identified as fringe) which other scholars disagree with - if his views need to be stated in the article (which they probably do), it should also be made clear where they differ from current consensus. I am happy enough with the reliability of other sources for this not to affect my vote - but it probably does mean that the article is in need of expert attention. PWilkinson (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep on the basis of PWilkinson's argument--the material in the G Books search is very extensive with about 100 RSs, but, also per that argument, & the search move to Kartan industry with a redirect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep per PWilkinson - but the article needs a lot of cleanup, proper references and also expert attention. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Entirely understand why YetiHunter took this to AfD, but the links provided by PWilkinson do show significant coverage in scholarly sources. Passes WP:GNG in my book. I also agree with DGG that the article should be moved to Kartan industry. Jenks24 (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::: Rescued, I hope Further to the above, I have tried rescuing the article. The existing text is was close to unsalvageable; I have added reliable references, and have incorporated the first of these (Kohen's Aboriginal Environmental Impacts) them into the article. The effort has shown me (see for yourself) that there is good stuff on Kartan industry but that the article at the time of AfD was nowhere near it. I will have had a go now at one or two of the other references I've listed, and we'll see if it can survive. I have deleted almost all the old text as it was unsupported by the evidence I could find. I hope the new version is a bit better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

::::Certainly rescued in my opinion. The wider search term "Kartan industry" (to which I support a move) turns up a most interesting, well referenced subject. This is AFD at its finest. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

:::::I'd be happy to support Yeti Hunter on "Kartan industry". Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2011 (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.