Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalmore bone
As some one who done some http://zog.utc.edu/~ssmullen/maps/Behavior%20Cemetery/Behavior%20final%20report.pdf Archeological Research (Read if interested or WP:TROUT for Narcissism) I am going to drop my opinion here and take it for what you will. The notability for Single artifact from an Archeological Excavation would have to be extremely exceptional artifact cited by multiple peer reviewed studies and more then  just mention in few conference papers and brief mention in popular science book. This artifact notability seems dubious as best for several reasons. (A) http://books.google.com/books?id=oZ3JGYd1kJoC&pg=PA432#v=onepage&q&f=false This source indicates there was no substantial excavations of the site where this thing was found. This means such bone is essentially useless until such an full or partial excavation occurs. (B) the only source to give substantial coverage seems to be one abstract and discussion here seems to indicate we are citing the abstract and no one here is has actually read the paper! It could be entirely possible that the paper includes substantial disclaimer about the lack of actual evidence or "further research needs to be done to discover x." (C) Lacking peer reviewed paper on the bone itself I can't see the notability aspect at all. (D) According to  specifically  "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention" the only source to discuss it that I linked to above seems to spend maybe a couple of paragraphs on the bone thus filing . The fact I already gone through several Archeo databases and cant find single peer reviewed publication on it speaks volumes. This perhaps could go into an Article on Megaliths or Margaret Ponting but really frankly cant evaluate it as having enough merit to warrant its own article. (F) Add on top of all that the  concerns and it really can not stand
— User:ResidentAnthropologist, 03:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NOTE||WP:SIGCOV||WP:FRINGE (Wikipedia:Notability)