Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Archaeology

: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 keep. MuZemike 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

=[[Birmingham Archaeology]]=

:{{la|Birmingham Archaeology}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|Birmingham Archaeology}})

Somebody put this up for speedy, but I don't think it qualifies. I am not sure, however, if Birmingham Archeology meet WP:N or WP:GROUP. I removed the CSD template and the associated hang-on template. I put it up for this AfD discussion without any clear opinion myself on whether or not it should be deleted. I just think it needs to be discussed. The group was involved in retrieving the Staffordshire Hoard, which may just be enough to fullfil notability criteria, as this discovery could go beyond the one-event rule, which I suppose only applies to WP:BLPs anyway. So let's get the ball rolling on discussion. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete: Per WP:N and WP:RS..South Bay (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Possible keep Since it is involved in a major news story it will probably get more media coverage. The fact that it is entrusted with such an important responsibility shows its importance. Borock (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

:*"Future notability" hasn't saved an article from deletion yet. Being selected for field work in no way confers notability; in many cases volunteers are used, or teenagers from an archeology [http://www.caa-archeology.org/index.htm summer camp]. Abductive (reasoning) 09:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, This is a commercial branch of a department of a university with no real claim to notability. The horde was discovered by guy with a metal detector, and the real study of these artifacts hasn't even begun. Abductive (reasoning) 09:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep since there is coverage in news sources (courtesy of [http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?um=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=%22Birmingham+Archaeology%22&cf=all Google News]) predating their involvement in the Staffordshire Hoard event. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

:*Yes, there are mentions, but which of those news items confers notability to this corporation? Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

:**I would say that the Birmingham Mail articles do since they are about digs organised by Birmingham Archaeology. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Query. Has anybody tried looking for sources on this organization under its former name? E.g. {{findsources|Birmingham University Field Archaeology Unit}} --Paularblaster (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

:*No, and I'm withdrawing my delete notvote; there has to be fire under all that smoke. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (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.