Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotland enigma

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gotland enigma

[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)

This is interesting stuff, but very much the work and synthesis of a single researcher, Troppenz. His book [1] is the only source of related material; all the other opinions cited in the article are otherwise unpublished personal communications that Troppenz recounts. We can't really sustain an article based on one author developing a hypothesis in one non-peer-reviewed work. WP:TOOSOON. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Organisms. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- It should be expected, as is, that a subject so unknown does not have much literature on it. While yes, I do agree with you on the points you make about the re-accounts of the quotes. However, more people than expected know about it: Sven Littkowsky is one of the people I'm focusing on. Sven has worked with Troppenz and others to make this artwork which has the Gotland Enigma in it. While not similar, the Francevillian biota article covers a topic that is not widely known, like the page I made, however on a topic that is relatively more well known just for its importance. Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are no other sources discussing it other than the one given. GNG needs at least a few sources (more than one) for notability. We don't have that here. I don't see anything in Jstor or Gscholar. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No matter how well-meaning, the article's creator has long had a tendency of delving into the most obscure and technically most challenging areas of ancient palaeontology with tons of enthusiasm, but without a sound understanding of the complexities of the topic, and bravely churns out new articles based upon old, outdated or theoretical publications. I fear this one is no exception. The author of the Researchgate article on which this detailed page is solely based, states in their ResearchGate bio "Goal: I wrote books about multicellulary life in the "Pre-Cambrian", especially in the Paleo- and Mesoproterozoic. I am connected with paleontologists, who work in the Proterozoic and the Archaean to find multizellular organisms. My goal is to get more verifications and proofs for my findings and theses." (see here).

Unless sources for highly speculative fossils or pseudofossils are derived from multiple, serious, peer-reviewed scientific papers with an extremely high degree of professional competence, simply basing a Wikipedia article on one journalist's imaginings in this specialised field is most unwise. It is simply WP:TOOSOON. I have previously advised User:Rugoconites Tenuirugosus of my concerns over their misinterpretation or incorrect use of sources that are not WP:RS, and I see it once again here. Whilst undoubtedly done in WP:AGF, this simply does not meet the standards we need to set in such specialised, technical areas, unless we are willing to see Wikipedia become the promoter of vague interpretation, hypothesis and imaginary artists' illustrations. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; more than one source is needed to notability. SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single self-published source clearly fails the WP:GNG. 23:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Draftify or delete. I concur that the topic is not notable - the article is based on a niche work of dubious reliability (is the author reliable? publisher? I don't see what makes them so?). In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I can only suggesting that this experiment is draftified instead of being deleted. Maybe the topic will become notable one day, when reliable sources discuss it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Sweden. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 1 February 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.