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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green archaeological excavation (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)

This was a contested prod. While the concept seems laudable, this article seems basically intended to promote new field strategies rather than to document already notable ones. LadyofShalott 16:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no secondary sources at all can be found for this topic. Abductive (reasoning) 16:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above comments. It is a bad article name as well. It should be Archaeological excavation and the environment. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 13 January 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.