Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amber in British place names

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 02:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amber in British place names

Amber in British place names (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pure speculation misleadingly presented as fact, request for reputable sources (indeed any sources) has failed. Delete Flapdragon 10:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete — I'm not exactly sure about the purpose of the article, but possibly WP:LISTCRUFT, and looks like it fails WP:N. The source seems reliable, however. --RazorICE 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • To clarify, there simply are no British placenames referring to amber, as far as I can see or the writer of this article can show. The article says (in a weasel-worded way: "may have", "must have been" etc) that there are, but does not produce any sources. It also implies a lot through irrelevant juxtaposition, for example mentioning that "there is" a river called the Amber, in fact a pre-Celtic river name which would hardly come from an English word derived from mediaeval Latin and first recorded in that sense in the seventeenth century! As for all the "Burn..." places, why would they take their name from German Bernstein when the English is "amber" and the corresponding word "burnstone" does not exist? This is not an encyclopaedia article, it's an unsupported piece of original invention. Flapdragon 11:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Strange sort of WP:OR article here, I'm not even entirely sure what their point is - but regardless, it is unsourced original research and should be deleted. Arkyan • (talk) 15:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The fact that I cannot ascertain the point of the article even after reading it a few times is a definite problem. Looks like unsourced OR to me. --Cyrus Andiron 18:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • It's original, certainly, but I'm not sure it can be dignified with the name of research! Flapdragon 19:38, 19 April 2007 (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.