Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Göbekli Tepe script


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Göbekli Tepe script

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:OR. There is no Gobekli Tepe script, the site is far too old for the carvings to be glyphs of any sort - therefore no academic sources mention the possibility. The only source cited is a self-reference to the website (http://decipherquarterly.piczo.com/?g=1) of the article's main contributor, S. M. Sullivan. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 15:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to delete the article as OR, do so, but there is no basis in fact for your statement that writing could not have existed in 11,500 BC.S. M. Sullivan (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, you created the article, if there are published sources asserting what you wrote, by all means let's have them. Otherwise, it doesn't belong on wikipedia.  I say this as the most fervent of inclusionist editors.--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: based on nominating statement. At best, this hypothesis is under investigation by the article creator, see  and, but until its been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it should not have a separate article (or coverage elsewhere on wikipedia).--Milowent • talkblp-r  18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep:It is claimed that Göbekli Tepe script refers to the abstract symbols which were engraved on stone objects. The author doesn’t mention writing. So the article may continue. But if desired, the title may be moved to Göbekli Tepe symbols, and the author may avoid using the word Glyph.-- Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't change the fact that it is OR. No reliable source mentions abstract glyphs, pictograms or symbols at Gobekli Tepe. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 07:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Göbekli Tepe. Takabeg (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing supported by sourcing to merge, to be honest. Note this fascinating story in Smithsonian magazine about Gobleki Tepe, where there is some discussion of the symbols, and the lead researcher says ""We're 6,000 years before the invention of writing here."  The current substance of this article is: "The signs have an obvious horizontal orientation, on one notable example, they are engraved in a raised horizontal low-relief band across the base of a T-shaped pillar which also features an image of a fox cradled in attenuated human arms. Symbols include right and left parens, a hadron (capital H-shaped glyph), a capital I-shaped glyph, a trident, an undulating vertical line, and a capital U-shaped glyph."  Even these descriptions need sourcing.  The claim of an "obvious horizontal orientation" appears to be part of the article creator's claim that it looks like script.--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is original research. As Milowent says, there is nothing supported by sourcing to merge. I'm disturbed by the idea of an editor creating an article based on their self-published website, as it could be considered an attempt to publicise the website. Note that I do not think that is the case here, but this is one of the reasons we have WP:COI. And of course WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. The site clearly proposes that this is a script, without any evidence, and the WP article implies it's writing in the text, in addition to claiming it is in the title. The symbols may be notable for the Göbekli Tepe article, but yeah, nothing here would be worth merging. — kwami (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (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.