Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archaeobiologist


 * 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 keep. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 22:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Archaeobiologist

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dictionary-like entry. Page was started as a hoax definition, "fixed" at some point. Nothing links to it, and I'm not sure that it is in fact a subdiscipline of Archaeology. SolidPlaid 02:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Let some time for it to be something more than a stub, the discipline appears genuine: Archaeobiology Program at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. Tazmaniacs 02:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's Archaeobiology, for which no page exists. This page should at best redirect there (if it existed). SolidPlaid 02:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - HOAX, OR, NN. The closest I could find is Zooarchaeology, Environmental archaeology, and Archaeobotany, all of which are legitimate. I think someone either created this page as a hoax or they didn't know what the actual name was for the practise, so created an incorrectly named article instead. There aren't many links from Google, and even then it says "Did you mean Archaeozoologist?" just confirming that this article may been an article intended to be for Zooarchaeology. Spawn Man 05:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment HOAX and OR has already been disproven by Tazmaniacs. Turlo Lomon 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already given other reasons and rationale for why I think it may be a HOAX, although I didn't say that it was definitely one. Spawn Man 05:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete but open to recreate once more information is obtained on Archaeobiology, a page created, and then Archaeobiologist would be a redirect. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Turlo Lomon 05:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note Actually, referencing the above link supplied, redirecting to Archaeological sub-disciplines may be a valid fix for this. Turlo Lomon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turlo Lomon (talk • contribs) 05:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - appears to be a hoax, hard to find any reference to this besides a few articles, seems like a made-up term for a field of archaeology.  Zchris87v  09:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps create archaeobiology page first and redirect there. Didn't see the Smithsonian webpage.  Zchris87v  09:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I think the Google searches that we have established that there are a tiny handful of archaeobiologists in the entire world. If I told you I was an archaeometallurgist, would you have any trouble figuring that out? The article violates WP:DICT. SolidPlaid 09:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to Pennsylvania State University...

"Archaeobiology – the interdisciplinary study of human populations, subsistence economies, past natural environments, and natural resources – represents one of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of archaeological research today. It is a natural bridge between studies focusing on ancient societies and other scientific disciplines including demography, biology, and geography. Archaeologists contribute long-term perspectives spanning millennia to several pressing contemporary societal concerns, most importantly the growth in human populations and the long-term impacts of humans on their environments."
 * Another definition:

"Archaeobiology is the combined and integrated analysis of plant and animal remains from archaeological sites. Archaeobiology is rooted in human-land relationships, the core of many historical processes. Civilizations rise and fall not only for political reasons, but also sometimes for ecological ones. Ancient decisions about agriculture, grazing, fuel-cutting, irrigation, and associated water management, especially in an arid environment are reflected in archaeobiological data such as charred seeds and bones. Not only do these remains help us understand the past, they mat also inform discussions of land use today [... Who drank the first cup of milk? How many places did milk drinking begin? Did human action or climate change destroy the early forests of the Middle East? Can dogs alter the interpretation of prehistory just by gnawing? How do pastoral peoples manage the health of their animals and work to provide them with adequate pastures? How do farmers and herders learn how to deal with the risk of hard times?...]"
 * If the problem is just "archaeobiologist" and archaeobiology, then I'm sure we should simply redirect the former to the latter. Landscape archaeology actually seems to be more specialized than this description. Environmental archaeology, however, seems to be quite close, so maybe it could be just merged to the latter. I am no specialist, but for anyone a little interested in archeology, it is no surprise that modern disciplines made possible by both new technologies (population genetics, for instance) and new thought frame-works (environmentalism, for example) would lead to such long term archeological research. Note that if environmental archeology exclusively focuses on the relation between man and the environment, "archeobiology" includes the question of subsistence economies. Tazmaniacs 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Other references: Kristin Sobolik, (University of Maine), Archaeobiology (AltaMira Press, 2003), Archaeobiology Research Laboratory at The Ohio State University, Larry J. Zimmerman & William Green (ed.). Archaeologist's toolkit (7 volumes:[...Vol. 5, Archaeobiology], Dr. Bruce D. Smith, Curator and Director of Archaeobiology Program, Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, etc. Tazmaniacs 14:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and Expand greatly - I think that since there are very few of these folks in teh world, there would be very few hits on Google and so would be proportional in interest and references. I agree that it needs to be expanded to remove the dictionary-like feel the article has.  However, due to its uniqueness, I think we should keep it.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 23:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand--obvious n the basis of what Tazmaniacs has found--there is a good possibility that there have been other names used in the past for the same specialty, so the title might be worth some discussion subsequently once there is some content. DGG (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And certainly expand this. • Lawrence Cohen  19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * transwiki To wikitionary. Mbisanz 02:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Hardly just a definition, so much more can be added to this, who are the experts in the field? when did the subgroup come about? are there any institutes or groups associated with Archaeobiologists? So yeah, its mosy definately expandable --  Chil dzy  ¤  Ta lk  15:59, 22 September 2007 (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.