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. Cirt (talk) 01:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid archaeology

[edit]

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

Delete. See also prior discussion at Talk:Pyramidology#Article rename.

This stub was recently created in a good-faith attempt to differentiate btw esoteric/pseudoscientific/non-mainstream claims about pyramids (ie, pyramidology), and academic archaeological research on pyramids (ie, this stub). Problem is, the scientific study of pyramids—either singly or as a class of structure—is not a recognised or separately defined (sub-)field within archaeology or any other discipline.

While there's obviously plenty of academic research conducted on pyramids, this is in the broader context of investigating an archaeological culture, time period, engineering/technical development, etc.

While individual archaeologists might have expertise & career-long attentions to particular structures or groups of structures, there are not really "pyramid archaeologists" per se, as a class.

Any archaeological knowledge about individual pyramids or pyramid groups/types that wikipedia might record is best covered (is already covered) in the various articles—Egyptian pyramids, Nubian pyramids, Mesoamerican pyramids, etc, plus the many articles on individual structures—or at pyramid itself.

Any info in this pyramid archaeology article would be redundant with these others, & as mentioned there is no discipline or methodological approach peculiar to the archaeological study of pyramids to warrant an article on a subfield and its techniques (excepting the pseudoarchaeological, and for that we have the common term and article pyramidology). I see no prospect for useful/non-redundant expansion of this article, & the subject lacks a real-world definition; therefore propose delete. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. cjllw ʘ TALK 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article purports to be about the scientific study of pyramids -- which doesn't exist. As stated by the nom, there isn't a branch of archeology devoted to pyramids. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's arguments. ClovisPt (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pyramids were built by many different unconnected cultures for many different reasons, so lumping together all these structures in one article gives the false impression that pyramids are connected in purpose, as proponents of pyramidology might do. Gary (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would, at best, just be a disambiguation page which would be confusing in of itself. -WarthogDemon 03:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Excavations at Stonehenge and Excavations at the Temple Mount aren't different branches of archaeology either, but having articles on them doesn't seem too strange. I lean toward delete now because this article has nothing to say and arguably (though if so erroneously) presents pyramid archaeology as a specialized science. I would have no problem if the article were recreated with encyclopedic content. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:At the moment it is misleading at best. If rewritten it might be useful as an archaeological survey of pyramids but would perhaps best be covered within the Pyramid article itself. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to dab page and point to pyramidal archaeological articles... say Egyptology, Mayanology etc. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kudos to the nominator for waiting a week to see if the author was going to say anything else. The article consists of two sentences that boil down to (a) It's defined as "the scientific study of ancient monumental pyramids" and (b) "Pyramidology" is the name for the goofy pseudo-science about the magic of pyramids. I think that there should be a disclaimer in Pyramidology that emphasizes that it is not about the archaeological exploration of pyramids. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I might have seen keeping it, had it been a larger article or expanded with references but as it stands this amounts to little more than original research.--Amadscientist (talk) 15:17, 17 December 2009 (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.