Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magic cross piercing

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. plicit 14:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Magic cross piercing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unsourced. Was not able to find any significant coverage about the topic in reliable sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The website that has been added as a source "Londonspeak.co.uk" appears to be a low quality (possibly AI) content farm, just look at the homepage [1]. I do not think this counts as significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is the German source that looks reliable, and claims to work with real businesses. About loudspeak: I am not too familiar with such content farms you are talking about, so it may be that. you can remove the content if there is a strong basis NorthernWinds (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia I have found a few other sources [2][3]. They do sell services though, so I am not sure how useful they are to us NorthernWinds (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These were cited in the italian wiki [4][5] NorthernWinds (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Londonspeak source - this is very clearly an SEO content farm. Please see the discussion at WP:RSN if you need more detail. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an accurate view count? I'd say 86k views is a rather high-traffic page. Regardless, delete - as OP stated, no sources. cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 22:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem to be a real Google trend [6], but it's actual source is a mystery to me. Maybe TikTok? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, TikTok does seem to be the most likely source [7] Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s from TikTok, I provided an explanation on on the talk page. twisted. (user | talk | contribs) 04:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that explains it. --cheesewhisk3rs (pester) 10:04, 27 May 2025 (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.