Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3,000,000 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. Modernist moved the info, so nothing to merge Staxringold talkcontribs 01:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

3,000,000 BC in art

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

A list with one item. Very unlikely to expand. No proof that the one listed item actually occurred in the year 3,000,000 BC. There may be evidence that it did occur in pre-history, but 3,000,000 BC is an oddly specific date. 650l2520 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:V. Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Change title to 3,000,000-2,000,000 BC in art, or some suitable phrase. It is quite likely that additional artifacts of some sort will be found & the article will be expandable.   DGG' ( talk ) 02:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge this article, along with the other articles about years in art before some date to be selected (say, 5000 BC or 10,000 BC), into a single article titled Prehistory in art. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to Art predating the establishment of homo sapiens and merge all such articles into it. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment also, merge all H.sapiens "in art" articles that predate the establishment of cities, this would be something like Art before 10000BCE by H. sapiens 76.66.192.144 (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete the object mentioned as a work of art is not art, but a found object possibly carried by an early hominid possibly due to its similarity to a human face. art involves a creative act. unless we have a time machine that shows the hominid was an early ancestor of marcel duchamp, who put this object in a early museum and claimed it was art, this article is meaningless. the earliest art is probably from 100000bce at the earliest. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mercurywoodrose's withering critique of this particular piece of "art". A Year X in art article is unnecessary when a)there's only one item in it b)the item isn't art c)the year X is completely arbitrary, unlikely to be correct, and unreferenced. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I hear Thog the neanderthal was doing some fascinating flint tool sculpture back then, some of his work might turn up one day. Delete Tony Fox (arf!) 21:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  11:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Object is fully described in Makapansgat pebble, others objects are in Prehistoric art.--Yopie (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3,000,000 BC was a fine year for art and a necessary precursor of 2,999,999 BC in art. The precedent for Duchamp is a strong reason for keeping, outweighed only by the somewhat stronger reasons for deleting outlined above.  Ty  11:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per other delete arguments.  Ty  11:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per, well, all above. This is so oddly specific and Prehistoric art pretty much covers it, especially the issues around what specifically is art (per Mercurywoodrose) vs. a found object with a "face".  freshacconci  talk talk  11:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete although it was a good year. I moved the relevant information here: Makapansgat pebble and it's listed at Years in art, this article is unnecessary, although as a precedent for Found objects hmmm...Modernist (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I may be overly-cautious here, but identifying the artist of the Makapansgat pebble as a proto-Duchamp may be a shade into original research territory. Besides, saying anything is over 5000 years old just proves Wikipedia's liberal bias. Remember, God hates Wikipedia.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick google search for Makapansgat and Duchamp may help out here...  Ty  02:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rather than the first work of art, it can claim to be the first Readymade, as one commentator facetiously remarked." http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/19/gamboni.php Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I mean, three million years. That's a whole two million years before Raquel Welch.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete I created the original article. This debate has come up before with some other prehistoric list of years in art, and what has been ruled then is to not have such a specific year article when we're going so far back. So I recommend either a broader article can be created with a list that covers a wide range to which the content of this article could be merged with, or delete this outright for the reasons people gave above (due to the lack of true scientific specificity, not the Raquel Welch argument). My $0.02. Keithh (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (without retaining any redirect) -- this and all other items in the Paleolithic section of List of years in art into a single list. That article contains a list of "year" articles back to 1000 AD. I am sceptical of the merits of such articles, but they are not the subject of this AFD. There is then nothing back from AD 1000 to premote prehistoric periods. Such lists are a navigation aid, but categories generally do it better, but in this case the category is clogged up with an exceessvie wealth of detail, which needs splitting my centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete This article does nothing that Prehistoric art and Makapansgat pebble do not. Cerebellum (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2009 (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.