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

Stefanos Sinos

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

Deprodded without improvement. Current sourcing does not show notability, and searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG, and with a high citation count of a whopping 11, and not seeming to meet any of the other criteria, does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find notability in GNG or Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Per comments below and Talk, the original article has been somewhat improved and the subject's notability is now more clearly visible. Perhaps you could have another look. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:00, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : The Gbooks link above shows several volumes either citing or discussing this author, in English and German. He worked on the Parthenon among other things, I'd say these show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify please? Bearian (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your vote for delete while the comment seems to be in favour of keeping? Moritoriko (talk) 03:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: You say above that these show notability. With this in mind, could you please clarify your !vote or restate your view? Also, some of the deficiencies of the original article have now been improved, so perhaps you wouldn't mind taking another look? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep sorry, I clicked on the wrong button. We have enough for a small article and the items I mentioned in my comment show critical notice. Should have enough for a weak keep. Oaktree b (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't speak Greek, but I suspect that we may be applying our RS criteria only for English sources here. There seems to be more – and quite possibly enough to justify keeping the article – in Greek about Στέφανος Σίνος (e.g., a number of books, various articles including this one showing Sinos giving a tour of Mystras to Giscard d'Estaing, etc.). I think we may want to pause and look a bit deeper. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2): Further to the above, we have two entities on wikidata (d:Q113809331 and d:Q131292844), which I suspect may actually be the same person. If you look at a few of the entries in the first (such as the American Academy), the date ranges seems to correspond more closely to the subject of the second – which is to say, the subject of this discussion (I've depreciated the 1900 dob in the Wikidata record as a precaution). This needs more work, but it seems like it also points towards keeping the article (and tagging it with the appropriate maintenance tags, etc.). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The two Wikidata entities have now been merged (confirmed as same person) resulting in correct display of the various Authority Control databases in which Sinos appears (NB: w:Template:Authority control configured with "expanded" parameter for the duration of this discussion). This adds further weight to the argument for keeping and improving the article. It may be difficult to find English language sources (for myriad reasons), although his last book on the Archaeological Site of Mystras seems to have been either written in or translated into English. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per comments above. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would think that Sinos could qualify for NProf via criteron 1, has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, with the books that I am seeing published. I don't know how citation counters work but from what I know I think they tend to focus on papers instead of books? (please correct my misunderstandings). And following from Cl3phact0's research above. Moritoriko (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation numbers apply to books also. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the case for NPROF appears fairly strong. Also, in addition to the Mystras book (and the several decades of work it documents), his book on pre-modern architecture looks as if may be a standard university textbook on the subject (according to the publisher, it was reprinted as recently as 2023). I haven't yet looked for more about the older publications, as I'd rather prefer to spend my time on other articles until the outcome of this AfD has been decided. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list of publications appears to indicate notability in the fields of archaeology and architecture. Is there any reason why they shouldn't? P Aculeius (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see. However, I will say, in deference to the original nom, that it was (is) exceedingly difficult to make sense of or even decode the relevant references and citations, most of which were literally in Greek at the outset of this process. Sinos's notability was very much obscured by this fact (as well as the messy data at Wikidata – now somewhat rectified). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been incrementally improved. As such (and prior to pouring too much more time into it), per discussion on Talk, I'm requesting that the original nominator et al. re-evaluate the nom based on current state of affairs and ~~my belief~~ the evidence that NPROF is now a valid justification for keeping this article. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]