Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discovered text (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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:20, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Discovered text (archaeology)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find sources discussing this as a concept in archaeology Doug Weller  talk 20:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions.  Doug Weller  talk 20:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. No mention of the phrase outside Wikipedia. A very loose, non-defining concept that could apply to thousands of texts but the article only includes a random selection of three. Joe Roe (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't think it matters that the phrase is rare.  More serious is that neither the introductory sentence nor the existing content gives a clear idea of what the subject of the article is.  It's possible that there is a useful article here if its scope is defined properly.  The title is a secondary issue. Zerotalk 07:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It's not a subject covered in reliable sources. Texts that are dug up and hence discovered don't deserved to be discussed separately. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 13:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, we have a rather extensive category system for lost works, lost texts, etc. Not for "discovered" ones. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The title appears to be a translation from Chinese, which might better be translated as "Excavated Texts" which appears to be a concept in Chinese Archeology (see e.g., Snippet from The Cambridge History of Chinese Literature - Volume 1 - Page 66). Note also the references in the Wikidata-linked Chinese article . I placed a translation template on the article where a machine-translated version can be viewed for discussion purposes. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We have three items on texts of which one or two are from archaeological sources; the third probably be something that was standing there until someone interested passed. This is not a useful list.  There must be vast number of texts from archaeological sources, including much of what we know of the history of Sumer, Akkad, and ancient Egypt.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a very vague term that requires a lot more defintion than this article gives. Going off a quick Google search, the phrase doesn't seem to be used anywhere else and it doesn't seem to meet the requirements at WP:GNG.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 08:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could not find a source that clearly defines the term. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:35, 7 September 2016 (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.