Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical digging

: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 merge to Excavation (archaeology). causa sui (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

=[[Historical digging]]=

:{{la|Historical digging}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Historical digging}})

This is an incomprehensible, repetitive, poorly written, weird point of view, self-sourced article with a smattering of information that could also be called amateur archeology or scavenging. Essentially the pet topic of a single editor. When PRODded, the owner of the article removed the tag and made no attempt to correct any discrepancies. The owner of this topic should find a personal blog for this theory about digging up trash. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete, Merge - well, yes, there really are too many WP:Content forking articles in this WP:Walled Garden about amateur Archaeology - the Garden includes Privy digging, Dump digging, as well as the current article, and clearly this is (at least) two articles too many, so we should consider all of them together. The three articles have been created (Privy digging in October 2009) and have largely been edited by a single user who has edited no other articles since he (I presume) created Historical digging in August 2009. (Dump digging was created by another user but largely taken over since September 2009.) The three articles have very few references between them, and most of the paragraphs (and many whole sections) have no citations at all. There are quite a few (correct) external links wrongly buried in article text: these could be moved to inline citations, but in any case they are not adequate sources for the large amount of WP:ESSAY claims made. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can see the point of the argument to merge, but given that the article contains no sourced content whatsoever, I don't see that it would add anything to Excavation (archeology). That article has enough unsourced content of its own without us adding more. There's clearly an original research problem in this clutch of articles, and I feel a merger would simply make matters worse. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:* The article contains many sources. Your statement is therefore quite false. Warden (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete Vague topic which duplicates material in Privy digging and Dump digging. No good refs except those duplicating the other two topics. Full of original research, and largely an essay. Nothing worth merging. Edison (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This is an article apparently about the worst kind of amateur archaeolgy, akin to the kind of treasure hunting known as "night hawking". It is unecyclopaedic WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep Although related, historical digging and archaeology are separate pursuits. This article has potential and additional resources and editing can be done to improve its quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant09 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:: You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. However, everyone please be aware that Consultant09 has repeatedly edited the following articles: Historical digging; Privy digging; Dump digging; as well as once editing Garbology; Night soil; Outhouse; Archaeology, but no other articles. (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

:: You are correct Chiswick Chap as I only work on articles on which I have knowledge and interest. If you would like to suggest some constructive feedback for what needs to be accomplished I will attempt to address your concerns.

::: Thank you. The articles, if they are to survive, need to be supported throughout by citations to reliable independent sources (neither Wikipedia nor yourself). The case needs to be made that 'historical digging' is indeed more than just unsupervised amateur archaeology, again by citations. Material that is unsupported needs to be removed. Further, since there appears to be considerable overlap between the articles listed above, and there is currently so little material actually supported by citations, we need to reach consensus on whether there need to be so many articles, whether just one would be better, or indeed if any coverage is needed at all outside major articles like 'Archaeology'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

:::: I appreciate your response and will work to add the requested citations. I do understand your point but strongly believe that Historical Digging and Privy Digging have notability and are separate areas that are related to, but not covered by 'Archaeology'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consultant09 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Keep, Merge I reiterate that Wikipedia is a work in progress, with an intended emphasis on 'progress'. Moreover, just because provocative and ultimately unconstructive comments are made occasionally, does not negate an articles importance or validity, its authenticity or its importance to the research community in general. As a primary contributing author and someone intimately familiar with the overall facts and the complexities involved, I look forward to improving the article further, and/or merging it with the Privy digging article providing that's the democratic consensus.Olesachem (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge Upon reflection, historical digging and dump digging are quite similar and should probably be merged. I think that privy digging refers to a different activity and should probably remain separate.Themischr (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Keep I see this as the more general article of the three ; there is some duplication, which can better be handled by a little rewriting into WP:Summary style than by merging, because there's substantial specific content also. This is the sort of work we should be strongly encouraging, not listing for deletion. Deleting a stub or a borderline notable person makes very little difference one way or another, but this is the sort of article that is important. There should be a very large literature, and the possibility of links with many Wikipedia locality articles. Deleting this would show a remarkably strange conception of the role of Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

:* Keep "Deleting this would show a remarkably strange conception of the role of Wikipedia." Arguably one of the more productive, sensible and democratic comments made this month regarding the historical digging article. There’s always room for improvement and as a primary contributor and someone who has worked extensively in this field, along with privy digging, dump digging, and a wide variety of hands on landfill research, I look forward to working together to improve this article on all levels.Olesachem (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

::Once is enough. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Merge per Colonel. Note: an SPI will soon reveal if the suspicion of socking is based on fact. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (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.