Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of significant archaeological discoveries


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 16:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of significant archaeological discoveries
Inherently POV: who says they are "significant"? Unsourced. Looks like Original research. If a legitimate list does have some status in academia then we need an article under that precise name - but I don't know what that would be, unless a journal has published some market research showing what academics in the field believe to be the top advances. Mais oui! 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Point of information I note that the article was only recently Moved from List of famous archaeological discoveries - which says a lot. This is really a type of "celebrity"-spotting article, of no encycloaedic value. It has been hanging around the Wikipedia ether since January 2003, and yet it has gained no actual substance or weight since then, only unsourced additions to the list. I spotted this because its related category is up for deletion at CFD:
 * Categories_for_deletion
 * --Mais oui! 09:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as open ended listcruft :Supergolden:: 09:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Tonywalton | Talk 09:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I contributed to this list in the past. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft, per nom: significant by whose definition? Just zis Guy you know? 09:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PJM 11:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bhoeble 13:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Subjective creation, of no value to researchers.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   13:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Scranchuse 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Suggestion If the content of the article has any merit, in that the sites listed contributed to the development of archaeology, then referencing these sites from History of archaeology in context would be more useful (and delete this list article) - Viv Hamilton 13:57, 23 April 2006 (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.