Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earliest documented people


 * 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

Earliest documented people
Deleted. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 15:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


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

Delete. I appreciate the good intentions behind this article, however there are IMO serious doubts that this could ever be a valid entry free of original research and arbitrary inclusion criteria. Who decides, whether (a) the person is historical and (b) they are the earliest-known? Does the inscription have to be contemporaneous with the person, or are semi-legendary lists (that might be mythologised actual rulers) such as in Sumerian ones able to be included? Sure, there are references in the article but I don't think these actually make the explicit claim intended by this article. Perhaps demonstrating the inherent problems, the article itself is self-contradictory- it claims that the entries are "the earliest people that are definitively known to have existed", but then immediately follows with "Many of the dates and/or people here are disputed". If they are held to have definitively existed, then there should be no dispute. At least two to three of those listed have notes in their own articles pointing to some historicity dispute, and the chronology of the whole period is hardly settled. The articles for the first two in the list both make the claim, based on this article, that 'if they had existed they would have been the earliest documented person'- but which, then, is it? The article on Scorpion I describes an inscription which mentions yet another contemporary protodynastic ruler, casting further doubt on the effectiveness of the attempted list. If some degree of disputed dates/historicity is allowed, then how would you determine what that latitude is, other than by an arbitrary and OR decision on the part of some editor..? The article misleads as it stands, and don't see how it can validly live up to what it attempts to do. cjllw ʘ  TALK 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't agree with the nom's reasoning; even if a candidate for inclusion on the list is disputed, all that is needed is a reputable source and a discussion in the article of controversy. That in itself doesn't mean the article should be deleted. However, as of now it doesn't seem any sources do exist to provide the information this article seeks to provide: namely who are the "earliest documented people." As such, any attempt to synthesize existing articles would seem to break WP:OR. JFlav (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with JFlav that the sources to document the claims that these people are indeed the "earliest documented people" (as opposed to merely being "documented people" from early times) are missing. JJL (talk) 22:59, 19 February 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.