Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest cities

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 of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oldest cities

I submit that the information in this article is fundamentally unverifyable - people may claim that particular cities are "the oldest" etc etc, which is fine for that city's page, but with the scarcity of evidence, I don't believe that we should have a page containing a list, with dates, that definitively states which cities are the oldest. --Si42 14:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. While there may be some cases where priority is contested, this is in fact verifiable by archaeology. See also the discussion at civilization. Smerdis of Tlön 14:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much some cases of dispute as ALL the cases (look at the first few on the list - they are not as bad as they were, but all the first 3 claimed different things), the archeology involved is far from an exact science, certainly nowhere near good enough for a pseudo-definitive List! All we're going to end up with is a bunch of patriotic, almost nationalistic debate from citizens of India, China and the countries of the Levant - where pride is derived from the apparent status - complete codswallop. --Si42 15:14, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Not inherently NPOV, unverifiable (although this article clears needs some sourcing), and definitely notable. A move to List of oldest cities might be in order, though. Batmanand | Talk 15:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I can see I'm going to lose this. Shouldn't we at least have a note on the page pointing out how these ages are widely open to interpretation, and that interpretation is usually used by interested parties to further their own ends (see pages for Jericho, Damascus, Arbil, Hebron etc etc --Si42 16:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, however I somewhat agree with the last comment by the nominator. Many of these cities haven't been constantly populated or were small settlements etc. The article should probably include note of this. Tomb Ride ^{My Talk} 16:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs some retooling and a new name, however. youngamerican (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I had kind of hoped for one person to agree with me, but since that hasn't happened yet, I may as well start working towards doing what I can to improve the page.--Si42 17:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Keep, but can someome please write an introductory paragraph explaining the criteria (e.g. continous occupation, evidence of earliest occupation etc.) I'm not sure about the use of the word city either, it hints at a size or population requirment. Markb 19:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since there is consensus here (I still think the page is unverifyable but it seems I am alone) and some major changes have been made to the article, I am proposing that we close the nomination, I will leave the "requires sources" tag on until I manage to sort out the sources for the list (I got the ages from various Wiki articles - it's far from perfect but it's better than it was. --Si42 13:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep and possibly change name You can verify the information with sources.... why not? A better name may be List of oldest cities or something. Roodog2k 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I already changed the name and am trying to verify the sources where posssible. Thanks for your input. --Si42 00:39, 16 April 2006 (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.