Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alignment (archaeology)


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete re-written verstion. The delete votes are stale since they were cast before the article was sourced, leave given to speedily renominate if the current version is deemed deficient. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Alignment (archaeology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Nominate for deletion Has existed for six years without references. See Talk:Alignment (archaeology): relevant Wikiproject consulted two years ago (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology). I could find no sources. That was two years ago. Boleyn (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * keep Articles that have been unsourced for a very long time (since 2006) are often an indication that standards were lax back then, not that the topic is a bad one. This is a minor topic in archaeology, but it is a real one. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - One source has been added to the article. It needs more. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - real subject, while needs work it meets minimum standards. And one source is better than it was. Jrcrin001 (talk) 04:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:ITEXISTS, the subject being "real" does not mean the article should be kept. Lack of sources means this article fails WP:N. Cyan Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 08:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - "It exists" is not always a reasonable argument in favour of keeping, but it isn't an argument in favour of deletion. I don't understand what your argument in favour of deletion is. elvenscout742 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sorry, but it's ludicrous to claim that lack of sourcing = lack of notability. They are not the same thing at all. As Andy Dingley states, sourcing standards were far laxer when this article was created. The fact it doesn't have good sources simply means nobody has yet got round to adding them, not that they don't exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:ITEXISTS. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. I'd like to hear more about specific sources which may help to prove that this subject passes WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. For the article to pass WP:V, the relevant sources that have been asked for must be cited in the article. They are not.  Sandstein   13:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * keep - source found my first reaction was that this was another example of a wiki-article attempting to WP:OR a new meaning out of a commonly understood english phrase. However it appears that the term is in use in archaeological circles eg  - I will add this as a source to the article. 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).Oranjblud (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * however there is the issue that many of the uses of the term "alignment" in archaeology fall into the scope of use of the word as a commonly understood english phrase. eg "alignment of graves" "alignment of roads" - as you can easily verify using a google book seach - attempting to infer a defination from many of these sources would be WP:Synthesis or maybe represent original research..Oranjblud (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * re-check I've essentially re-started the article - I would guess the deletion needs to be reconsidered.Oranjblud (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve -- The term certainly comes up in archaeology, but it may be used in several ways. It is currently a poor article, but that is no reason for deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The term certainly comes up in archaeology and it seems likely that there is enough reliable source material for a stand alone article on the topic. It makes sense that you can find burried features or structures by assuming a co-linear arrangement with external, visible landmarks or a mixture of visible landmarks and sky marks. A quick search found - Statistical Study of Lunar Alignments at the Newark Earthworks discusses the significance of archaeological objects in their alignment with moon, sun, stars, etc. Rare Animal-Shaped Mounds Discovered in Peru by MU Anthropologist mentions alignments between celestial events and religious structures. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (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.