Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of artifacts in Philippine history


 * 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 userfy. Consensus is that the article should be blown up and started over - moved to User:Joe Roe/List of artifacts in Philippine history Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

List of artifacts in Philippine history

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recent page creation by banned WP:SOCK account from a few days ago. Shaded0 (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JournalmanManila Shaded0 (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as the WP:Source stated, that :
 * The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
 * And all of the sourcing and references by this page are fitted from those three sources, this is not a Original researches or a hoax, even it was based from a blog sites which had no references, as the people who want to delete the article must look on the lists of references , every statements from the page had citations this is even not came from Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. as wikipedia policy says ,  the lists of references are come from the academic and scholar works and even news from reliable news agencies such as Philippine Daily Inquirer for example, (one of the list of references) as if the users or admins is aren't consider this news site as a  reliable or irrelevant.  in short theirs no question of the accuracy of the page as it was backed by reliable-academic sourcing, and speaking of a "banned sock", there are NO stated rules in the 14 rules of WP:Deletion had stated "delete an article which is created by a banned editor despite or even of its reliability" NONE ! (Dashcam (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC))


 * Keep. Do we delete articles just because they are created by a sock? There is quite a lot of good, well-sourced content here. For consistency with other national archaeology overview articles we should probably rename to Archaeology of the Philipines and clean it up a bit (it looks like there are some copyvio issues), but it seems a shame to lose it altogether. Also, I don't see a tag on, are they a confirmed sock? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I support the Renaming for the sake of neutrality according to wikipedia policies.(Dashcam (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC))


 * Delete and/or Split. Not just because it's created by a Sock (no further comment on that for now, because I haven't reviewed the evidence), but because it ignores some fundamental problems of "Philippine" history - which is that it really wasn't "Philippine" history per se before the 1500s. Ask any historiographer or anthropologist and they'll agree that "Philippine" history presents a patently false sense of politico-cultural continuity. The presence of the article alone is a POV-push issue. An article like this is important, yes, but it really should be reconstituted as (1) Lists of Artifacts from separate ethnolinguistic regions (The Sulu archipelago, Mindanao, the Visayas, the Bicol region, the Tagalog Region, Central Luzon, The Ilocos Region, Cagayan Valley and the Cordilleran peoples); plus  (2) a list of artifacts from the prehistory of the Philippine archipelago (to cover the early habitation and migrations period); (3) a list of artifacts from Philippine Colonial History (I will argue that this is also needed); and possibly (4) a list of artifacts from Philippine Contemporary History  (say, after Philippine independence from the US. I'm a bit more iffy on this, but this includes things like Ninoy Aquino's bloody bulletproof vest, remnants from the Magsaysay plane crash, etc.) I agree that the content here should be kept as much as possible, but organizing it this way is just... misleading.  - Alternativity (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename/Additinal comment - Upon considering more options, I now support the idea of renaming this as Archaeology of the Philipines, although I still feel it needs to be reorganized to avoid POV/synthesis issues, and rewritten to remove nationalist peacock terms. - Alternativity (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Suggestion i think it's better to be Rename i believe it's the best thing for this article.  i don't see anything misleading on the article, but we should clean this up (by the issues of Peakockries , or any copyright matters) because i see a potential on this page in general they are part of Philippine archeology . (Dashcam (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Further more, we need to recognized to the following methods for the benefit of the doubt:
 * A, check the references,
 * B, Rename the article for the best neutral name as possible
 * (According to WP:Source and WP:Delete ) (Dashcam (talk) 11:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC))

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep there was no relation between the reliability and sock puppetry, and the article was proven to have a valid references and it had passed the categories of being an encyclopedic, all what we need is to review for if theirs a copyright or neutrality issues. (122.54.197.173 (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)) — 122.54.197.173 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 19:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Since when a wikipedia article serves as an artifact /archaeological findings catalogue? If followed through completely, this article might developed into an extra long page. Imagine if a country with a longer and richer history and tradition than the Philippines — such as Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Greece, India or China, create this kind of article? A serial book or a catalogue is more suitable for this kind of long article/list. Plus in the "List of artifacts in Philippine history" section that contains obscure and spurious claims of Philippines past contacts to Greek kingdom of Ptolemy, Ancient India, and Persia is kind of stretching too far and went out of historiography discipline. But then again how I'm not surprise.., since this article was created by a sockpuppet with an agenda to rewrite Philippines history through creating a pseudohistory. Some of of these artifacts or findings is maybe valid, so with its references. However, considering the notorious bad practice of this sockpuppet to provide false refs; which providing a reference that look so valid, but after careful examination, mention nothing about the claimed section. I do not have the time and patience to examine each of these refs, but then again.., this subject is not suitable to be composed as a wikipedia article. So please delete it already. —  Gunkarta  talk 15:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology of and Special:PrefixIndex/Archaeology in. Of course it shouldn't be comprehensive catalogue, but an outline of notable discoveries is a perfectly encyclopaedic topic. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Still did not convince me to keep this article. Plus thanks to Hunter05 and Dashcam that has invested their interest, this article has already developed into a confusing jumble of Philippines artifacts list, that some of them are even too obscure and unclear to be categorized as archaeological findings and lack of notability. Also some parts contains dubious claims with questionable refs, especially that "Recorded contacts from foreign trades and affairs from contemporary kingdoms" table that links Philippines to all that faraway civilizations including Ptolemaic Kingdom. Plus by inventing that obscure term "Archaic epoch" (?) of the Philippines history. Previously I've been interacted and witnessed the work of this JournalmanManila sockpuppet aka User:Hunter05 that created this article. I strongly believe he does not respect copyright, the scientific approach on writing history, nor possessed a required discipline in historiography, as he often spinning to fringe theory, inventing pseudohistory and resorting to spurious claims, even falsifying refs while editing to back up his claims. Possibly motivated by undue nationalistic agenda to rewrite and represent the history of his country in a more glorious light, he often invented a pseudohistory that despite the scarcity of archaeological findings, he describes pre-Hispanic Philippines as a strongly Indic-influenced civilization that somewhat in par with Angkorian Cambodia and ancient Java. Delete this article, and create a new "Archaeology of Philippines" article from scratch, free from all that rubbish, spurious claims and false refs, is more make sense and economic than trying to sort through or try to make sense of all this jumbled up information. —  Gunkarta  talk 23:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep i find out the list of references are comes from academic sourcing, even the external links are valid there are mentioned NO fabrication or pseudo-history so far in any stated items, because of supporting references  and passed as encyclopedic (WP:Source) despite of it was created by a sock good for this is ; we should review  and correct the terms of some stated artifacts instead
 * Suggestion considering of the Academic sourcing, I support of renaming it as Archaeology of the Philipines or Archaeology in the Philipines instead of deleting this and check the page for the clean up in shorter terms the page is legit but we should check and clean this up, we need to be sure of its accuracy  for the improvement.(Pricedelink (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)) — Pricedelink (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Potential keep but rename somehow. We have a series of articles on Philippines history and prehistory,  but having something by way of overview is also potentially useful.  This has the potential to become a useful list article.  Whether or not some of the content is FRINGE is not an AFD issue: that can easily be removed by editing.  As to the target, I am not sure that "archaeology" is right.  Unless some one indicates that "archaic" is a term that is used, I would suggest "medieval" instead.  In some Nordic countries "prehistoric ends at a similar date.  I do not think it is so bad as to need TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and start entirely afresh I have already expressed my position regarding the organization of the article in my comments above. I've had to think a lot about the usability of the sources in this article and in light of the suggestion of User:Gunkarta above, I'm now also convinced that we should start afresh with an Archeology of the Philippines article. Such an article, not being just a list, would be able to put the listed artifacts in context. I'd like to participate in writing that article, but I'll await the community's pleasure regarding next steps, first.- Alternativity (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An addendum: Please note that the sockpuppet in question has had a history of borrowing citations from other wiki pages and using them to assert "facts" which aren't in the original. (I have particular concerns about his past use of Scott's Prehispanic Source Materials, and of Bellwood's "Pathos of Origin" (Paths of Origins - he doesn't even bother to get the title right.) .Gunkarta and I have both had to undo some of the damage done in the past, and the cost he is referring to is of reviewing the article line by line, and checking not only if the fact is in the reference cited, but whether it has been misrepresented through cherrypicking or through peacock terms and weasel words.   To be fair, the sockpuppet has indirectly led to the improved coverage of precolonial Philippine articles.  But that's because s/he keeps manufacturing fringe articles so fast that other editors are forced to come up with orthodox articles, lest the coverage of Philippine prehistory and early history be made up completely of fringe theories and nationalist/postcolonial mythologies. - Alternativity (talk) 06:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: has already !voted above. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but prune, as WP: Source stated and  rename also needs a little clean up  because  the content are Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax and any false histories. You may wish to review the criteria for WP:Deletion (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:56, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Suggestion rename it to Philippine Archeology (124.104.94.92 (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)) — 124.104.94.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Totally support Alternativity suggestion to delete and start entirely afresh the Archaeology of the Philippines. We both have shared experiences on dealing and cleaning the mess of fringe theory and examining false refs line by line created by sockpuppet in question in some other articles. Moreover, the problem on dealing with sockpuppet is their tendency to pretend to be other users to rig the vote in an attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions and distort consensus. The practice of this sockpuppet to deceived, mislead and disrupt the discussion can be examine in Talk:Kingdom of Tondo that finally revealed that JournalmanManila, Theseeker2016, Parashurama007 and Hunter05 are actually the same person. I started to suspect that those IP adresses above: 124.104.94.92, 122.54.197.173, and Dashcam might be the same person, which ultimately User:Hunter05 and JournalmanManila. —  Gunkarta  talk 14:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: has already !voted above. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Support of Keeping and Renaming  WHY? because as i checked the page and its content and it was a Legit, and i stand based on the wikipedia's policies on keeping and deleting and it had been passed to the academic sourcing WP:VERIFY, the content of this page had been analyzed and it comes material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. reliable sources include:
 * University-level textbooks
 * Books published by respected publishing houses
 * Magazines
 * Journals Published
 * Mainstream newspapers - Inquirer for example (As one of it source)
 * Academic sourcing
 * The piece of work itself (the article, book)
 * The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
 * The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
 * which is the STANDARD core for being and encyclopedic Source or references. all what we need now is only Clean it up and Renaming this and i think it is not appropriate to accusing anyone which stands for wiki standards. and it seems dubious why some users here if they know the policies of deletion, what i mean was we need to Review and check Sourcing of any article before we act on something like deletion as i said earlier this article had a potential just keep it clean!  (Dashcam (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Additional Comment PS before i decide to Keep or to Delete this content, i check the following Rules actually i looking on it flaws to decide if to keep or to trash it , but all of the sourcing and the external links are legit so far on my observations, so to be in neutral the only thing i am not sure was the terms that used so for now i Still convinced to Keep it for a while and support Renaming of it . (14:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC))

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. If the article is deleted, could it be copied to my userspace please? I'd like to try and salvage at least some of the content for other articles. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see this latest account edit also to make sure it is not the same IP: this edit. Shaded0 (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. - Expressing support for Joe's request. Given the tainted slant of the text, I still think a total restart is more feasible than having to do a line by line revision for source verification and POV/Neutrality issue resolving. But it would be useful to have a draft version of this temporarily stored somewhere. While the text is oftentimes suspect and usually weasely-peacocky, the sources merit evaluating and checking one by one, and the best way to do that after a delete is to have a temporary draft. That said, may I ask where the community thinks it would be appropriate to discuss the organization of an Archaeology of the Philippines article? That topic will require a lot of input since anything earlier than the 1570s has to deal with the separate cultures and polities plus socio-technological eras. (Some combination of the proposed outlines of Scott (1994) and Jocano (2001), I suppose? I don' remember if Joaquin (1986) or Samuel Tan proposed anything specific. I'd have to check... ) Anyway. Eager to get to work on that, but not sure if the List of artifacts in Philippine history talk page would be the right place, considering its afd nom. - Alternativity (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. While one shouldn't toss out an article simply because of the sockpuppet origins, the behavior here reminds me of the parable of bad fruit coming from a bad tree. And both the tree and fruit here are rotten. Delete and start over. Ifnord (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 20:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:Joe_Roe's perferred space. L3X1 (distænt write)  20:56, 15 September 2017 (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.