Deletion of Alignment (archaeology)

Comment: For the article to pass , the relevant sources that have been asked for must be cited in the article. They are not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: my first reaction was that this was another example of a wiki-article attempting to  a new meaning out of a commonly understood english phrase. However it appears that the term is in use in archaeological circles eg http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8HKDtlPuM2oC&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false - I will add this as a source to the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alignment_%28archaeology%29&diff=515318722&oldid=514095932 diff However the definition given does not extend to the other definition given in the article, though I believe the article to be correct - I believe that the second definition given is also valid (based on having heard the term in use). I would suggest editorial oversight should leave the second definition in until it can be referenced. However some of the body text is a little to obtuse to be realistically left as is with out a single supporting reference (irrespective of whether it is right or wrong
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as per . If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITEXISTS)

Comment: I'd like to hear more about specific sources which may help to prove that this subject passes 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)