Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1300 in Italy


 * 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   keep. is the consensus after the articles have been improved and the nominator has withdrawn JohnCD (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1300 in Italy

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

One of a series of list articles, each with one entry, prodded by User:147.70.242.54. Prod removed by originator with the edit comment "lengthened". Not only is a one-entry "list" article not supported by WP:LIST, this actually borders on nonsense as it stands.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are also one-item "list articles":



B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All because it would be rather unencyclopedic and unmanageable to have a "YYYY in Country" article for every year in which one notable event happened in a country. These lists don't appear to have any value above that. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep 1300 in Italy and Delete all others per the expansion of the first, while the other articles still list just one event. See comment by below. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all This does not seem like a good way to organize information. I guess people are trying but we need to consider what would be useful to readers. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all (but modify). Since many countries such as England have the same sort of aim, I think that possibly from 1000 - 1800 we should have decades or centuries (i.e. Years of the 1600s in Italy), rather than an individual article. I just created the pages to have them grow. Could you possibly redirect them.--Theologiae (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete all Redirects seem somewhat implausible - categories would be better as are used for years in the modern era. User is welcome to re-create as List of things that happened in the 1300s in Italy (or whatever).--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I'm saying. Rather than deleting some very hard work, could people just redirect them to a page like 1300s in Italy, Years of the 14th century in Italy or Years of the 1300s in Italy, or something like that. That way, the short and now I agree, pointless pages are replaced into meaningful categories, and everyone's happy. Any suggestions?--Theologiae (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, you can start doing that for the "list" articles with only two or three entries (especially since those with only two entries are vulnerable to nomination for deletion discussion), but the better idea to save these one item "lists" is to find enough information to add and make them actual lists (I'd recommend at least three entries to start each list). As far as the suggestion for merging, that can still be considered here, but since the AfD discussion has started, bold redirection would be considered disruptive (addition to the articles is not). B.Wind (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it's difficult to redirect to articles that don't exist. I'd copy the content out into a sandbox page with a view to creating articles with bigger lists.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You would need to rename your articles (as 1066 in England was renamed 1060s in England and expand them by moving content from the lists for individual years - it's an entire wikiproject really. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are specifically disallowed by WP:NOTDIR. Ikluft (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing I'm saying, is, how come there's no problem in having, let's say 1800 in France, but not 1300 in Italy?--Theologiae (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you actually looked at 1800 in France? Note that there is no 1799 in France. B.Wind (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but there's 1716 in France... and 1600 in Ireland, which would be ridiculous if you viewed it like the Italy pages--Theologiae (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of them are valid list articles, even the latter, which has exactly three entries. B.Wind (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Even with a few added entries, this is still scraping the bottom of the barrel to the level of a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. How about much wider timeline list articles than just one year apiece, to build unquestionably substantial articles?  Perhaps 1100s, 1200s, 1300s and 1600s in Italy? Or they could be named for the 12th, 13th, 14th and 17th Centuries in Italy, depending on precedent from other articles.  If not by century then the History of Italy is the only other unquestionably appropriate place.  Doing one year apiece will set a trend for recurring AfD fodder. Ikluft (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm remaining with a Delete position for now. There aren't current history-by-country-by-century articles by century to merge into.  It sounds like consolidation to history-by-country-by-century is the idea which would achieve the most agreement in this discussion.  That's the level where there's consistently enough material to make substantial articles.  Continuing with history-by-country-by-year would leave little AfD-fodder articles scattered everywhere.  Ikluft (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

*Merge all into an article on the history of Italy. Dew Kane (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Keep all. I do agree that lists take time to grow. Nevertheless, lists like these do meet Wikipedia's guidelines. It is pretty easy for a dedicated researcher to find multiple events in a single year in the history of Italy. Dew Kane (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What sort of articles do you intend?--Theologiae (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Something on the history of Italy that has a timeline. I'm sure someone is more familiar than I am. Dew Kane (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete all except first Keep first three; delete fourth as the editor who prodded the original series of one- and two-item "list articles." There are several good suggestions in this discussion and on the author's talk page... and I'd strongly suggest putting the series under the aegis of an appropriate WikiProject (WP:WikiProject Italy perhaps?). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Modified recommendation as 1300 in Italy seems to be expanded enough to qualify as an actual list article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Another update. Two more nominees are expanded - I have modified my recommendation accordingly. Side note: this would have been much better handled if the articles were created only when there are at least three entries for each of them. This bordered on silly. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles need to grow. I've added 4 more to 1300. It took a few minutes. I think that deals with what B.Wind wants--for anything in a historically well-studied period and country it will always be possible to do this.  I'll do the others tomorrow. They are not indiscriminate--indiscriminate would be listing everything that took place in the period.  A list with material limited to that in articles on notable  Wikipedia  subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing.  Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. It is considerably easier keeping articles of this sort and adding content, than merging and then unmerging.     DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, DGG, that hits the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned. If we can get the other four nominees in similar shape, I'd be more than happy to withdraw my nomination of all five of them (another similar-looking dozen have been posted on my talk page - IP has already expanded about two-thirds of them). Thanks. Currently I have no objection to keeping the first as expanded by DGG. B.Wind (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep In principle there is nothing unencyclopedic in "[Year] in [Country]" articles. This is what an encyclopedia, especially an online one, is for: looking for information by year, by place, by name, by concepts and so on. So we should at the very least keep the ones having more than one item, populate them and, in time, create more. Goochelaar  (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Comment every one of those listed here, and a number others listed on B.wind's talk page, have now been populated. Using only information on Wikipedia it took about 10 minutes a year. It's sop easy, a bot could do it. Personally, I think the advantage of an online progressively growing encyclopedia  is that it can be done an item at a time, as they occur--the need to do a whole batch year by year would only be present if we were preparing a one-time print publication.  If it comes to that, I think this could be done for every country in Europe for every year from 1100 or 1200 up to the present and by 10 year periods for the earlier 2 or 3 centuries & the peak centuries of the classical world. (some really undocumented  periods and areas might need going by century).   Others with the necessary knowledge could probably do it for Asia as well.


 * Withdrawing nomination (keep all), thanks to a lot of work by DGG and my IP friend (User:147.70.242.54). Because of the initial "delete" !votes, this cannot count as a speedy keep situation, but since it's been six days since nomination... Thanks again. B.Wind (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2010 (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.