Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greek Neolithic development theory

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Neolithic development theory

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fringe/pseudo-scientific "theory" pushed by a single-purpose account. No trace of any published coverage. Of the alleged prime source, a 2020 work by one "Petros Laios", not the slightest trace can be found anywhere. A second source (Dimitris Papadopoulos, Neolithic Greece) is probably made up too – there is an actual print book of the same title edited by one Papadopoulos, but neither the editor's first name nor the alleged year of publication match. It's also not clear how a book allegedly from 1986 could possibly be a source for a theory three other people purportedly developed in 2020.

The author of the article has done literally nothing else on Wikipedia but spamming references to this "theory" all over the place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated this seconds after FP. I cannot find the sources either, nor can I see a difference between this and Neolithic Greece (clearly the same as one of the alternative names in the article, "Neolithic Greeks". Doug Weller talk 15:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the sources either, nor could I find anything else corresponding to the name of the article. Fails WP:V and, a fortiori, WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also couldn't find any sources at all about this theory, though to be fair that could be because I searched in English not Greek. However, I think it's telling that this recent review (published this month in fact) of the Souutheast European Neolithic makes absolutely no mention of it, or any of the authors mentioned in the article. At best this could be a few lines in Neolithic Greece, but not until some reliable sources materialise. – Joe (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, too, have tried in vain to find anything regarding the sources mentioned in this article. I have also used some rather creative search patterns in order to find some of the "sources" that the same editor has tried to insert in the Neolithic Greece article. No luck. --T*U (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Whilst trying to assume good faith, this appears to have just been created for promotional usage by a single-purpose account. That, and WP:SNOW. Sorry. Foxnpichu (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I can't see anything to prove this concept exists - Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Badly written but topic seems notable, assuming there is sourcing for it. What is the reason for the AfD please? Elinruby (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there is no sourcing, and no, there is nothing notable here. You may be under the mistaken perception that this article is about "Greek neolithic development" (whatever that may be). That might well be a notable topic, or at least the "Greek neolithic" certainly is (but we already have an article about that). But that's not what this article is about. It's about one specific – alleged – "theory" regarding some development in that Greek neolithic, and that "theory" is apparently nothing beyond "something some school kid just made up one day". It doesn't exist except in the mind of a single person, probably the person who submitted this article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a confusing comment Elinruby. You say seems notable, assuming there is sourcing for it, but six different people before you have said that they couldn't find sources – so what makes it seem notable? – Joe (talk) 09:42, 10 October 2020 (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.