Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of discoveries in anthropology


 * 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. – bradv  🍁  04:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

List of discoveries in anthropology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, it needs WP:TNT because it is almost entirely WP:OR and poorly written to the point of unfixability, and it was written by a sock and thus could qualify for WP:G5. However, before it was confirmed they were a sock, I prodded it and it was de-prodded, so I'm taking it here.

Sample entry: sometime before December 28[63] during the year 1896, the birthplace of[64] Prince Gautama[65] (the Lumbini garden[63]) — Alois Anton Führer[64][66][67][68][69] and General[64] Khadga Shamsher[67] Rana,[64][70] Governor of Palpa[64] - What? And who says this is a discovery in sociocultural anthropology?

The author of the article was originally blocked for their lack of comprehensibility and other issues, as can be seen at the ANI report on them. Other 'list of discovery' articles similar to this one that they created have been deleted at AfD. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 21:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 21:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

*Keep. It should be improved rather than deleted. The article is far from perfect, but it looks to me that there are plenty of secondary sources. Tell me if I'm missing something, but most of the sources look OK to me. — Chugunkin (talk) 08:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article, like others created by this user and nominated for deletion, is hopelessly incomplete and ill-defined while attempting to have an absurdly large and indiscriminate definition of “discovery”. This includes finding things in the ground, performing measurements, publishing conclusions, and even recovering a tree at the WTC site. When every conceivable fact or item could potentially be listed in one of this user’s articles, it’s unclear what purpose this serves beyond the rest of the tree of anthropology-related articles. The prodded List of discoveries of writings will need to go too. Reywas92Talk 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ill-defined list with absurd realization. WP:TNT and no need to rebuild. –Austronesier (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nominator's rationale. -TrynaMakeADollar (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are missing something. No one is challenging the fact that individual items are sourced....it's that none of these items have anything to do with each other besides a massive overarching concept, and a "perfect" article here would have millions of entries, it's so poorly defined. Reywas92Talk 05:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is at best original research by synthesis, and more likely an indiscriminate list of facts. Cnilep (talk) 06:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please see this closely related AfD. Crossroads -talk- 14:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is much too wide-ranging to make a useful list. I suspect the defect is the broad US-use of the word anthropology, which (as taught there) includes archaeology.  This is because there is (I believe) only limited scope for investigating archaeologically pre-colonial sites.  A timeline of important discoveries in the anthropology of early man (mainly pre-10,000 BC, even 100,000 BC) might make a viable article.  The present scope is too indiscriminate to be capable of becoming a useful article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to History of anthropology. Some references there are ok, and it would be good to rescue the few useful morsels. But other than that it seems to conceptually overlap with that other article, no need to have a POVFORK. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete In principle, this would be a more discriminant list than List of discoveries by disciplines, but it's not nearly enough so that it is a worthwhile list, nor is there a reasonable path to make it one. I am not convinced that there is any content worth merging, and we don't really need to keep this around as a redirect in order to preserve a "revision history" whose only valuable elements are a few DOIs. Moreover, while I lack the ability to check, I suspect that this page may represent a recreation of previously deleted material. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2020 (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.