Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/25,000 BC in art


 * 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.  Maxim  ( ☎ )  19:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There's really nothing to merge.

25,000 BC in art

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is based on a time period from which hardly anything survives. In over one month of existance, no-one has bothered updating it with new information/references and etc. I just don't think it is important or detailed enough to remain on Wikipedia. It will do nothing to help anyone researching the respective title. Why should it remain?  A Prodigy   ~In Pursuit of Perfection ~ 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Good reasons presented above. Also, the section in it labeled Art lists only two works, and one of them, the Venus of Willendorf, is stated as being created between 22,000 and 24,000 BC which means it doesn't satisfy the conditions established by this article's name. This article just has no discernible utility. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also may I add, how can anyone hope to fill in the Events, Births and Deaths sections? You may as well ask me to stop bullets in their track by just holding out my hand.  A Prodigy   ~In Pursuit of Perfection ~ 21:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, these "[year] in x" articles are usually garbage, and on top of that it does not make sense to speak of 25,000 BC as a year. There is no reason to have a year in x article in this case, information should be, and probably already is, in a real article, i.e. prose. Punkmorten (talk) 22:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for good reasons above. Could have been WP:PROD without a "vote". ~ Ningauble (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: About as possible as "10,000 BC in NASCAR". Nom and above commenters summarize perfectly. Calor (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge:I agree with the above assertion that the birth/death section headings are not applicable in this case and should be removed (was included most likely as a template copy/paste). However I disagree with the notion that this article should be deleted. I don't understand the "it hasn't been updated in a month" argument at all - under that criteria hundreds of thousands of articles would have to be deleted everyday. I would not in a million years (pardon the pun) think spontaneously to do a search for Venus of Willendorf - never heard of it individually. But a person may be interested in finding out what type of art was being produced during certain time periods. I suggest instead of simply deleting - merge this with some of the other prehistoric "years in art" into a larger article with more content, rather than being so compartmentalized. I suggest perhaps on List of years in art that this article gets combined with other articles currently listed under the "Paleolithic" heading. That would most likely make this more useful than as it exists now.  Keithh (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge the information into an article on prehistoric art (I'm sure there's one around). I don't mind the XX in Art articles (I don't get the bias against them from others), but in this case this isn't even an exact year. No one has dated anything to exactly 25,000 BC, and there are other factors that render this rather useless. The fact this was a cut-and-paste also suggests little thought was given to the article. I do, however, agree with Keithh's statement that "lack of activity" is not a valid AFD criteria. Lots of articles are created as stubs and go for months and even years before anything is done with them. Wikipedia has no time limit. 23skidoo (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete at worst, Redirect at best. These kind of titles should be used when you can, with reasonable accuracy, place something to some specific year. If all we have are rough estimates (and both referenced articles mention estimates that are within a couple of thousand years) they should be put to some article with a wider coverage. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.