Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1952 in archaeology

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1952 in archaeology

This page is quite possibly the definition of useless. It contains one entry and, even if it contained 100, wouldn't serve a purpose not already served by 1952. At the very least, this should be redirected to 1952 but deletion is probably a better route. -Soltak 21:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agree, nothing there. Delete --Corto 15:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I just added something else, and I'm sure much more could be added with a bit of research. A valid topic with room to expand. Infrogmation (talk • contribs) -- 18:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I disagree. An article like "Important Dates in Archaeology" is valid, however, breaking each year down is certainly not. -Soltak 22:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with 1952 in science, which already has a section for archaeology. -R. fiend 18:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• strong Keep. Merging isn't sensible: archaeology isn't science. Why not have this article? Wikipedia is not paper, and I'm sure interesting things happened in the world of archaeology in 1952. This page might come in useful for some archaeologist of archaeology. Whyever delete it just because there aren't many events in it yet? A valid topic with room to expand indeed. Where else would one find a list of archaeological events of 1952? Give me a week or so and I'll dig out an archaeology journal from the 1950s and expand the article. If we do merge, and people like me add tons of stuff to it, someone will suggest splitting again. So why merge? Robinh 21:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Archaeology isn't science? I'm really interested in understanding why you think that. I took a course in archaeology in college and it sure felt like science to me. -Soltak 22:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

For those that don't feel Archaeology is a science I would direct his or her attention to Archaeology and Archaeological science. -Soltak 23:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per User:Infrogmation and Robinh (though I'd say archaeology _is_ science). ^…Markaci 2005-07-23 T 01:00:20 Z
• Keep, article has potential. Archaeology is not a science in that it does not fully conform to the scientific method. It does contain scientific elements though, hence the separate page on archaeological science. adamsan 11:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Part of an obviously valuable series. Calsicol 16:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, perhaps Merge or Create New Article, agree with Soltak. History of archaeology is an encyclopedia article. Important Dates in Archaeology is something that might make a good article, possibly by merging all these year-by-year lists together into a new article. An Endless List Of Archeological Achievements Categorized in Separate Articles By Each Year in History is not an encyclopedia article, it's an incredibly unweildy index. Xaa 20:21, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.