- 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. Contrary to what SailingInABathTub asserts, the nomination cites a policy-based reason for deletion, namely, WP:V. Because nobody here can cite reliable sources to verify this content (apart from perhaps one book nobody here can access), deletion is mandatory. Sandstein 07:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Proto-civilisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems like a possibly notable topic, but this article has been unsourced since January 2007. Needs a deletion discussion. Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally, I'd like to see it cited and kept, but a quick google search doesn't turn up much use of the term. I get the feeling other terms like quasi-state ( or it's alternate "proto-state") are often used instead, at least in the English language. I can't even find enough mentions of the term to suggest redirecting it to proto-state, even though the terms seem to almost overlap. Barring someone else finding information about the term somewhere, I guess deleting it is the policy compliant option. It can always be recreated if that changes.
- I'm not sure this article is even on anyone else's watch list. I edited it once or twice, like 11 years ago. The creator was blocked for massive copyright violations in 2017, so they aren't going to pop up to argue for saving it. (I just checked their talk, wowza, an unblock request response reads "You've certainly been previously warned; the word "copyright" appears on this page no less than one hundred and twenty-eight times") So, who even know where the text he created this with even comes from? I could be a copyvio for all we know, except it doesn't show up in google searches, so maybe this is one of the few he didn't copyvio. Heiro 07:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it fails number 7 on that list, "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". It's been unsourced for well over a decade. It was tagged as uncited and orphaned in 2009. Before I made my comment above I looked for information to cite and/or expand the article. I tried several variations of the spelling, just in case. I found several instances of it being used in a text, but nowhere did I find a definition or a discussion of the term, except on a few blogs. I couldn't find anything that would pass as a usable WP:RS . If you want to give it a try, feel free. If if no one is interested in adding citations to a 14 year old uncited orphaned stub, well. Heiro 17:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say redirect to Gerald Heard, but one would have had to have read, or even just skimmed, The Source of Civilization for why. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we started actually enforcing Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. This is a ture mess of an article. The fact some are arguing for speedy keeping shows some people are not at all serious about improving Wikipedia and want it to continue to drown in unsourced prose. This is a non-notable neologism, and we would need lots of sources analizing it as a concept to make it anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One person writing on a subject does not make it notable. The fact that one person proposed this idea is not enough to justify having an article on it. Verifiability guidelines speciffy that all articles must have sources in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless we can show that this term is widespread (not just used by one person)--Rusf10 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but tag for improvement -- This is an article about a historiographic or anthopological concept as to the development of human society. Uncle G clearly has some kind of access to the book: please edit in appropriate improvements, including at least a citation of it. A book that has been republished is likely to have been influential, so that its concepts are likely to be notable. Heard died in 1971, which makes it unsurprising that the nom can find little on the Internet, but not long enough ago for the book to be out of copyright. A redirect to Heard will not do, as that article talks about other aspects of his life but says little of his archaeological/anthropological work, which is clearly where this comes in. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:10, 17 April 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.