Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 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 keep. The way these things work, it'll get re-created sometime tomorrow anyway. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in archaeology

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

This article should be deleted as it is WP:TOOSOON for the article to exist because the article has no actual content. -KAP03 (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:Hoax. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Hoax? How does that apply? – Joe (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that the article has no actual content. I don't think the article is a hoax, because it doesn't say anything false. It is already 27 December 2016, so wouldn't it be simpler to keep the article instead of deleting it and then recreating it in 2017? Gulumeemee (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe the creator jumped the gun a bit, but this is obviously going to fill up soon enough. Like Gulumeemee I don't see any reason to waste time deleting and recreating it. – Joe (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic is not notable; it's an empty list. Not only should we not evaluate the quality of Wikipedia in number of articles, we should not be making articles simply to be a blue-link in a navigation template. Articles like these are born of recentism and smack of citizen-journalism in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2017 starts in a matter of hours. We're going to need a top level category for 2017 in this field anyway. The above comment that events in archeology amount to 'recentism and smack of citizen-journalism in violation of WP:NOTNEWS' is nonsensical. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally I consider anything that happened less than 5000 years ago recentism, and Wikipedia is rife with it. – Joe (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2016 (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.