Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunung Karang civilization

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. Clear consensus exists to not retain the article. Normally where there is a split on merge or delete I ATD and go merge, but in this case I'm persuaded by Austronesier's comment as to why we shouldn't merge. Daniel (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gunung Karang civilization[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)

While the first source mentions the traces of old civilizations found at Gunung Karang, I can find no evidence of any source (certainly not reliable ones) discussing an actual Gunung Karang civilization. There also is no indication that the prehistoric Pahoman menhirs have any relation to a "Hindu-style royal heritage site". Fram (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Indonesia. Fram (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: There are several journal sources that say that in the area of Mount Karang there was an ancient Sundanese civilization. Whereas you only read 1 article and easily say there is no civilization. In addition, menhirs and seven wells were found as civilization references. That proves a little that on Mount Karang there was an Ancient Sundanese civilization. Blackman Jr. (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OR. There is no evidence at all that the menhirs and the wells are from the same period. There are no scholarly sources discussing a Gunung Karang civilization, and the fact that some civilization also lived around Gunung Karang doesn't equate a "Gunung Karang civilization", which would mean that it is a separate one, not just a manifestation of a more general one. Feel free to list the sources that contradict my claims though, as there don't seem to be any (and I never stated that I only read 1 article: I read the two sources in the article, and looked for better ones in Google Books and regular Google; I found multiple sources about the menhirs, though mostly of a touristic nature, not scientific ones. I didn't find any sources about this civilization though. Fram (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no sourcing to say these rocks are indicative of some civilization in the area. Even sourcing about them is scant. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article mentions Mount Karang, but that proved to be a redirect to Gunung Karang, from which I conclude that Gunung means mountain. We have two journal sources on it (in Indonesian). I do not know that language and thus cannot comment, but I wonder whether merging the civilisation to its location would be an appropriate solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let us err on the side of humility, especially in domains (Indonesian archaeology!) where we may have content weaknesses jengod (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a reason to keep something. Humility is not presenting something as factual in anencyclopedia, when we don't know and don't have the evidence to suppose it actually is correct. To keep an article on some unknown, undiscussed civilization is not humility, it is hubris, Wikipedia knowing better than the experts. Fram (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gunung Karang. Searching through Google scholar and regular search in Indonesia "Peradaban Gunung Karang", there's no solid mention of it in any Indonesian articles that say it is a separate ancient civilization the same way other archeological sites (Tambora civilization/culture, Soppeng civilization/culture, you name it). However, there is significant mentions of the site when talking about the mountain itself, mostly as a tourist attraction. So I say the compromise is to merge it. Nyanardsan (talk) 09:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and salt). It needs reliable sources that talk about a site or a group of sites as a "civilization". There simply is no "Gunung Karang civilization" (or "Peradaban Gunung Karang") in the archeological literature on Indonesia (and there is plenty of good literature, User:Jengod!), and construing one from two poor sources is not just OR, but borders on a hoax. Merge/redirect is not an option, as there is nothing to salvage from the current poorly sourced content, and a made-up page title is an unlikely search topic. Btw, User:Blackman Jr. has a history of creating articles that fall into the space of WP:SCHOLARSHIP without appropriate sources (although some do cover real things and pass WP:GNG—but that's hit and miss). –Austronesier (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been persuaded by the other commenters to change my vote to Merge. jengod (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, which is a reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it reasonable to merge unverifiable content (and create a redirect in the process)? There is no evidence at all that a "Gunung Karang civilization" is something any reliable source has even suggested: merging this is basically perpetuating WP:OR / WP:HOAX, as explained by Austronesier above. Fram (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently invented, not a valid topic. Avilich (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2023 (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.