Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Archaeology

Shortcuts

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:

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.
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

Purge page cache

watch

Archaeology

Philippine jade culture

AfDs for this article:

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

This article appears to be some combination of WP:OR and pure fabrication, and I'm not sure where the balance lies. Three sources ("Neolithic interaction between Taiwan and the northern Philippines: the evidence of jade mining and exchange"; "Maritime Jade Road: The Neolithic long-distance exchange of nephrite in Southeast Asia"; and "The Archaeology of the Philippines: The Past of the Other Filipinos") appear to be completely made up or perhaps hallucinated by an LLM. They do not come up in any search results and the one with a link goes to a different source. The actual sources do not describe a jade culture specific to the Philippines but rather focus broadly on the jade trade across SE Asia ([1], [2]), make a passing mention ([3] or do not discuss jade at all ([4]). My WP:BEFORE search does not indicate this is a notable topic deserving a standalone page. An AfD discussion earlier this year resulted in a "delete" on WP:TNT grounds, and I'd argue that applies here. (This recreation has survived G4 deletion and is likely just over the line of additional users' substantial edits to survive a G5, which would otherwise apply since its creator is a sockpuppet.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:SALT. I visited the Palawan museum in Puerto Princesa on March 10 of this year. While the museum shows evidence of trade between mainland and (at least) Palawan, I didn't see a lot of jade; almost entirely it was basic material objects like giant turtles, baskets, earthenware jars, metal fishing hooks, bones, and shells. Lost, but presumed inside those, were foods like salted pork and fish, and turtles/meat. The instant article vastly overplays the "Jade trade" as if it was integral, with 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]