Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in archaeology

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

List of years in archaeology
I listed a couple of the pages individually but I don't have the time or inclination to do them all. This sort of sub-listing of yearly events is totally unnecessary, especially considering the fact that a very small number of 'events' are actually listed. I would recommend of the deletion of this list and, at the very list, a redirect of all of the 'years in archaeology' articles to the article of the corresponding year. For example 1707 in archaeology could be redirected to 1707. -Soltak 21:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Overly contrived category with no relevant information. More an exercise in building a template than anything else. Any relevant events should be listed in their corresponding years. --Corto 15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I remember when we had many such stubby and redlink heavy "years in" articles, many of which have grown considerably., but apparently we havn't had many editors interested in the history of archaeology yet. It's a valid topic with much room for expansion. If it is decided to delete this, I strongly reccomend consolodating the existing information somewhere, perhaps into an article entitled "Chronology of archaeology" or something similar, and then redirect existing articles there. If no one cares to consolodate, I'd say leaving our current stublets is mostly harmless. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't be opposed to consolidating the information into something such as "Important Dates in Archaeology." -Soltak 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and then Consolidate. As suggested above, an article on "Important Dates in Archaeology" might be best for now.  If that grows over time, it could be subdivided in some fashion, i.e. region of the world, cultures, or centuries......WBardwin 18:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Point of order: Perhaps you mean "Consolidate and then delete"? If one deletes the information first, I don't see that there would be anything to consolidate. Wondering, -- Infrogmation 05:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course -- but the history function allows us to do it either way! WBardwin 06:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge content into List of years in science and it's children articles like 1707 in science. It is a project that never got off the ground.  Penfold started it in March 2004 and it hasn't really developed at all since then.  Besides, there is no reason that the archeology content needs to be segregated out from the other science content like this.  Tobycat 06:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds good to me. -Soltak 17:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Do what Tobycat said. :) Superm401 | Talk 17:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with relevant year in science until such time that there is an editor to create lengthier articles on years in archaeology. Note to admin: this applies to both votes below. Capitalistroadster 18:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge per Tobycat and create list of archaeological events (if something similar doesn't already exist). As it stands this list provides a horrific way of navigating through a very small amount of information. Even if we were to separate these events by date it might be more sensible to do it by decade or even century. Flowerparty 18:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral, although it sounds like a merge with science, at least for the time being, may be in order. Just wanted to point out there are MANY more year in archaeology articles in this series. Niteowlneils 19:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. - SimonP 21:52, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Tobycat reason, and/or create a single List of archaeological events. It really IS a horrible way to navigate through a pathetically small amount of actual information. --Calton | Talk 06:20, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete after you take any useful info and put it in say general science category. Archeology is not that big and imprtant field.Renata3 06:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * really? What is your definition of big and important?  It is to me.  WBardwin 06:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Treating archaeology as solely a science is to open a big old taxonomic can of worms and merging it with those articles would not be acceptable to me. The field does not entirely constitute a true science as, for example, experiments/excavtions are not reproducable, once a site has been dug and interpreted it can't be re-dug and re-interpreted by someone else. Expanding List of years in archaeology would be a demanding task but it could happen slowly if those of us who are writing archaeology articles remember to copy paste paras into the relevant year article. Keep. adamsan 10:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Separation of lists by subject is essential to prevent them becoming flabby to the point of uselessness. Calsicol 16:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks good to me. It will grow. linas 21:18, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful, once the individual year articles are more complete. Uppland 07:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Archaeology is worth plotting by year, and will fill in eventually.  JDoorjam 19:38, 1 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.