Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1506 in 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 delete. ✗plicit 05:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1506 in archaeology[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 04:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One unsourced entry; the only year in the 1500s to have an article titled like this. I don't see a 16th century in archaeology article to merge/redirect to; Post-medieval archaeology might refer to the timeframe but is of awful quality. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Honestly, I think WP:TNT is the best option here. The other option would be a page move to 1500s in archaeology (referring to the decade), as there is a 1600s, 1610s, etc etc. Still, a single unsourced entry doesn't leave a lot to work with. The entire Table of years in archaeology page is sadly terribly incomplete. Curbon7 (talk) 04:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this belongs in a list article, not in an article nor category of its own. As per nom, WP:TNT, blow it up and start over again. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and above WP:TNT is the best option here. Slovenichibo (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as anachronistic; archaeology as a discipline didn't yet exist in the 16th century, so obviously there aren't going to be sources discussing archaeology in 1506, 1500s, etc. Post-medieval archaeology is also not a great merge target, since it is about the archaeology of the post-medieval period, not archaeology practised in the post-medieval period. – Joe (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Yes. You are absolutely right. It would have to be History of archaeology as the target, which has its own problems. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:22, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1506, where there is already a rather briefer account of the same event. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 1506. There is never going to be enough information about archaeology in 1506 to justify a stand-alone page, but the content there is good, and 1506 is an appropriate place for it to go. As a side note, an interesting little piece of trivia. BilledMammal (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated, the single event listed here is completely described in the 1506 article already. There is actually no sourced content in this article that is not already present there, so there is nothing to merge. In addition, as explained by Joe above, the term would be an anachronism, and thus not even appropriate as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced content. As stated above this event is already described in the article entitled 1506. Nothing to merge and not suitable as a redirect. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.