- 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Migrationism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, original research. Mattg82 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletionism per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- This is still in need of in-line sources but the topic should probably be covered here in some form. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not original research. Google scholar has many references to the term, including this from 1978: http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.an.07.100178.002411 WP:BEFORE is a Good Thing. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The general concept is explained with two good sources. No need to prove that the theory is true for it to be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without prejudice to a future merger This area of archaeological theory is a bit of a mess. We have Trans-cultural diffusion, Demic diffusion, Invasion theory and Acculturation [1] (at least), all related aspects of archaeological theory although they don't all link to each other (eg Trans-cultural diffusion despite having an external link to an article with the title "Diffusionism and Acculturation" doesn't have a link to Acculturation and vice versa). So, although I think this article should be kept, it should be kept without prejudice to a future merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge per Dougweller,
and *trout* nom per his persistent habit at failing WP:BEFORE when nominating at AfD.I confounded nom with !voter below, sorry. --Cyclopiatalk 01:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - keep, plainly a valid and notable topic within anthropological/archaeological theory, article created by a well-informed editor who alas no longer edits here. Per Doug there's work needed to rationalise and better organise the treatment overall of the various paradigms put forward as explanations or mechanisms for spatial & temporal change. But I think the ones we have (to those mentioned by Doug above, we might add couple others like sociocultural evolution) are sufficiently independent and differentiated concepts, & so not really candidates for merging. Rather, in addition to some cross-linking (a navbox maybe?) there are one or two umbrella articles where they could each be summarised and linked to; culture history is probably the most appropriate, though archaeological theory also should cover/mention most of these.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:49, 15 February 2010 (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.