Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landscape of 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. If anyone really wants to do the merge, I'll make the content available to you. W.marsh 16:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Landscape of archaeology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

It is unclear why these articles need to be seperate from the articles on landscapes or the other respective topics. Diletante 00:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:


 * Comment: It strikes me as likely that a common word like "landscape" has different, and more precise, definitions and usages in different fields (no pun intended), and that these definitions may well be complex enough to be subjects of articles of their own. That is the case with many common words when used as part of specialist terminology. The current articles may or may not reflect that as well as they should, but they are in several cases sourced to specialized studies on the topics. Aren't you actually suggesting a merger, rather than deletion of these pages? Pharamond 06:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If these were terms of art I would expect there to be edits by other editors, but these were virtually exclusively created/edited by one editor. Acually these terms are already in landscape planning, but someone has put a disputed tag on them. -- Diletante 14:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge where appropriate, otherwise just delete. These articles provide very little in the way of context and nothing in the way of references.  It may be possible to merge some of the material into the respective parent articles (or perhaps landscape planning) but given the lack of any useful information (most of them seem to be nothing more than a dicdef) even a merge may not be warranted.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Landscape planning. These concepts are important and different, but the articles are not substantial or well referenced. Furthermore they largely duplicate the similar sections in the target article. The landscaping for an open pit mine is not the same as for a historical site, and neither has much to do with tree trimming next to a powerline. Many millions of dollars are spent on some of these in a given state of the U.S. There are probably books and journal articles besides those few cited by the author.  There is no barrier to prevent creating well referenced articles on any of these topics in the future if the individual section in the target article becomes too long due to well referenced quality writing. Edison 22:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is nothing substantial to merge. I agree with Edison, no prejudice to re-creation if sources and substance are found. DGG 23:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This article is dealing with a genuine issue, possibly with a WP:POV. However, its subject seems to be the Landscaping of Archaeological Sites.  This is quite different from Landscape planning, which is an issue concerned with the design of the surroundings of modern buildings.  It is also different from Landscape archaeology, an academic discipline concerend with making archaeological deductions from ancient landscape features.  Accordingly, Keep but Move.  The rest of the nominated articles appear to be repeating material in Landscape planning and should be merged back to it.  Since the content appreas to be the same, this will consist of converting them all into redirects to that article.   If the author's objective was to expand these inot full article, no doubt he could have, but all seem to have eben created by Willow4 on 30 May 2006, and to have been changed little since.  Peterkingiron 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is nothing substantial to merge. They look like chapters from a single book, which proposed them speculatively, but have not been taken up by other authors. -Gomm 21:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to section of landscape planning what little may be mergable and dlete the rest. &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with Edison that re-creation with substantive content would be OK, and with DGG that there is nothing to merge. The current problem with all these articles is that there is nothing there. EdJohnston 03:15, 8 June 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.