Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Archaeology

Points of interest related to Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Archaeology. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Archaeology|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Archaeology. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from August 2016) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Archaeology/archive

11Q18 New Jerusalem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a single sentence stub for a fragment of New Jerusalem Dead Sea Scroll. Not seeing a good reason why this needs to be a page, notability appears to lie with the scroll (which has a much more extensive WP page). Not sure if there is anything to merge and a redirect is possibly debatable as may or may not be an unlikely search term on en.wp JMWt (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Judaism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep discussed in Lorenzo DiTommaso, “New Jerusalem Text,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 996 and Sidnie White Crawford, The Temple Scroll and Related Texts, vol. 2, Companion to the Qumran Scrolls (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 72. Not the most important of the DSS, but GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Scholar search also turns up Schiffman, L. H. (2014). "5 Sacrifice in the Dead Sea Scrolls". In The Actuality of Sacrifice. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004284234_007 and Ben-Dov, J. (2010). "Scientific Writings in Aramaic and Hebrew at Qumran: Translation and Concealment". In Aramaica Qumranica. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004194328_018 and likely others. Moral of the story? Even obscure DSS fragments have RS coverage. This stub could obviously be expanded with these various sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am discussing whether I'm completely wrong with @Jclemens on my talkpage. It seems to me that sources discuss the contents of a particular scroll, called the "New Jerusalem" scroll of which 11Q18 is a fragment of one of the copies. Not all the fragments of this scroll have pages on WP, so the question is whether this fragment has notability on its own outwith of New Jerusalem Dead Sea Scroll. Phew. JMWt (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge to New Jerusalem Dead Sea Scroll, as NOPAGE. That is, there's enough to meet GNG here, but even so, the value of having a separate page for this particular instantiation doesn't seem sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Society of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about an organization. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Archaeology, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I dug through the depths of Newspapers.com and Archive.org attempting to scrape together enough coverage for GNG, but I don't believe it can be met. There is a decent amount of local coverage available through Newspapers.com, but not enough to build an article on. Ironically, the Underwater Archaeological Society of British Columbia would probably meet GNG based on coverage I found, but not this one. There is also no suitable article to redirect this to, that I can see. MediaKyle (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine jade culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be some combination of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, and Philippines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Courtesy ping to @Toadspike, @Bearian, @Lenticel, @143.44.193.226 and @Chipmunkdavis, who participated in the first AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I think the logic behind the previous consensus still holds... None of the new material addresses the significant concerns raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: previous consensus still applies here in my view, and the article reads like LLM output. hallucinated sources are a bad sign. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  also: the article uses the term "culture" incorrectly (see archaeological culture), which is further indication that this is not a real archaeological topic defined in scholarship. ... sawyer * any/all * talk 04:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My reading is that G5 still applies, no additional substantial edits have been made. It's an interesting rub that
  WP:G4 was declined because an llm rewrote the page. CMD (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Chipmunkdavis Let's just say I've had G5s declined before for "additional substantial edits" on this scale, so I'm wary of nominating anything unless the other users' edits are pure gnoming. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. It's best that we don't use material that might have been hallucinated by AI --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. This is the same fabrication as last time. Since this appears to be a target for nationalist POV-pushing, I strongly suggest SALTing as well. Toadspike [Talk] 06:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and
  a hidden agenda, but it was peripheral at best: a rare luxury item that might have been packed in with other goods. When I get a chance, I'll upload some photos. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment from nominator: I am also supportive of SALTing given the recreation and the fabricated sources. SALTing will force any recreation through AFC where sources can be properly evaluated. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Not notable and uses fake sources, I don't see any harm in salting a non-notable subject for a page that's already been recreated once. DervotNum4 (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article subject isn’t notable in reliable secondary sources. Many of those in the article are even fake sources. If this page has been recreated before, it might now be appropriate to salt. Zach^H007 22:39, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm fine with salting per the suggestions of the editors above --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]