Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of discovery and distribution of the remains of Aegean civilization


 * 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. As participants have noted, there was nothing procedurally wrong with importing public domain content into Wikipedia as long as the authors are properly credited. The fact that an article solely consists of properly attributed public domain material is therefore not a valid reason alone for deleting an article. However, several editors have noted that the same content exists in better form in other articles on Wikipedia, namely Aegean civilizations, and because of this, there is a consensus that it is unnecessary to keep this article. Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

History of discovery and distribution of the remains of Aegean civilization

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This seems to be just a straight copy of the 1911 David Hogarth article in Encyclopædia Britannica which is given as its source. Surely an article should be based on its sources, not copying them? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 *  Speedy delete - Addition of unchanged EB 1911 text on Wikipedia violates WP:PLAG. Note that the text is also used for a subsection of Aegean civilizations, but that can stay as long as it's properly attributed (and ideally, cut down and reworded) usingthis guide. Since this page contains only the copied text and has no other purpose for existing, the article should be speedy deleted under WP:G12. Nanophosis (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that I misread the G12 criteria, public domain content isn't G12 even without attribution. However, the page should still be deleted due to all information already being contained at Aegean civilizations. Nanophosis (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Aegean civilizations. I think the attribution notice is enough to stay within the letter of WP:PLAG, but there's no reason to keep this page around when we have another that is a little better incorporated with the rest of the encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment (after ec). There is nothing wrong in policy with reusing EB 1911 articles in Wikipedia. I believe the entire contents of EB1911 were incorporated in WP at some early date of our development.  There is an attribution template explicitly for the purpose which this article is indeed carrying.  Of course, just because it's ok in policy does not mean we should use it uncritically.  There may be problems with out-of-date research and POV from the historic period. SpinningSpark 17:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - As noted in WP:EB1911, PD EB material was used to seed wikipedia pages in the early days of the encyclopedia. Much of it was formatted and cleaned up in various ways. In particular, this material was moved out of the Agean civilizations article in September 2002 with this edit but was returned in a better formatted form to the article in May 2005 with this edit. For some reason, this page was not deleted at that time, I am not sure why not. But I don't think there is any reason it should be kept. I have no problem with a redirect, but don't know that this is a useful search term. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would not be a useful term for search so would definitely prefer to delete rather than redirect. I'm finding all this about 1911 EB very interesting, though, and must research it all. Thank you, all. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. This extract doesn't work as a standalone article and it seems the useful bits have already been incorporated into other pages. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per deleters. However the nominator is swinging his axe rather incautiously in this area, & should go more slowly. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * My enthusiasm may get the better of me. If you think I have made a mistake, please correct it and let me know as I am still on the learning curve here. I don't think the categorisation has been done very well and I've been trying to improve it for the sake of navigation. I suppose that is what you are meaning about being incautious? Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the actual grounds in the nomination are not valid, as has been pointed out. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Ultimately Delete -- This has the feel of an essay. EB 1911 and certain other encyclopaedias that were in the Public Domain were indeed used to start WP.  However this article is of its time and inevitably says nothing of the last 107 (odd) years of archaeological research.  The question may be whether we have a suitable general article on the archaeology of the Greek world to replace this one with, perhaps replacing it with a redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2018 (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.