Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols and proto-writing of the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture

[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)

The article title does not match its content, being entirely about symbols of the Vinča culture. It is largely unreferenced, completely unstructured, and appears to be mostly created by copy-pasting pieces from articles relating to the Vinča symbols so there's not much, if anything, worth merging. Redirecting the page to Vinča symbols wouldn't be appropriate because the Vinča culture and Cucuteni–Trypillia culture are not synonymous. The article appears to have been created out of confusion in conflating the topics, and it's been neglected since then; it's best to simply delete it. Scyrme (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The original version is more structured and sheds some light on why it was created. But it was then (rightly) gutted of original research which led to this state. Currently the only think linking the content to the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture is one sentence near the end of the article: Thus it appears that the Vinča or Vinča-Tordos symbols are not restricted to just the region around Belgrade, which is where the Vinča culture existed, but that they spread across most of southeastern Europe, and was used throughout the geographical region of the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture. But this is unreferenced and, as far as I know, not true. In a paper from this year Johannes Müller says as much explicitly:

Here, so-called sign systems—composed of signs in areas free of ceramic decoration—play a role. Calculations of the relative proportion of signs in such decorative open spaces initially showed an increase, but then a decrease again in the last settlement phase. A similar tendency towards an increase in the number of “signs” in the overall region [of the Trypillia group] was also noted by Taras Tkachuk. Such special signs have sometimes been used as an argument for script development in Tripolye. But unlike, e.g., potter marks or rows of recurring signs in Vinca contexts of Southeastern Europe, they are simply secondary decorative elements and have nothing to do with “writing” or “pre-writing”.

So yes, delete. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2022 (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.