Talk:Ancient Australian history

Merge
Please state a reason ... J. D. Redding 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support merge. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC). Reason: because the two articles deal with the same period.Itsmejudith (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Forms of writing that isn't english exist and fall within the 3000BCE and 700BCE timeframe. J. D. Redding 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Whatever you say, but I really doubt there's enough material available to make a coherent article out of this one. Does the "writing" document history? If not extensively, then what do you base this article on? Merge away. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a stub. beginning articles don't takeoff immediately ... geez, J. D. Redding 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they don't, but I'd expect their authors to have some idea of how the article is plausibly going to develop. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This whole group of articles seems to have a common theme. They all include non-historical stuff for a start. Then there are claims like this one - there is no pre-colonial aboriginal writing, and the book he lists is about how in 19th and 20th centuries "how Indigenous Australians used writing and reading to negotiate a changing world, to challenge their oppressors, and to preserve country and kin." So what's it doing here? There is no Australian ancient history.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing here to merge that is not already present elsewhere. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)