Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1502 in India


 * 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   redirect to Timeline of Indian history. Although no one proposed this I believe it meets the spirit of this discussion. If anyone wants to merge any of it or create the page 1500s in India I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

1502 in India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No scope for improvement Benedictdilton (talk) 06:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy DeleteThis type of articles should be dealt with shoot at sight policy. Afd is a waste of time, this should be speedily deleted. Solomon7968 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into something along the lines of 1500s in India.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CommentThe editor who was made this article has made a quite a good number of contribution. I do not understand why he has made this kind of non sense pages. This type of pages do no good than declining the quality of an encyclopedia. India has seven millenium of history we cannot write the history year by year. So speedy delete. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge User:Icarusgeek has been grinding many such articles (for example, 1964 in South African sport, 2005 in Nigeria, and 1935 in Southern Rhodesia) so that's where his/her editcount comes from. I agree that creating articles such as 1502 in India when Timeline of Indian history remains empty makes little sense.  I am an inclusionist but not an eventualist for precisely this reason.  Icarusgeek isn't the only culprit and I think the community should investigate this proliferation of stubs.  Merge this information into an appropriate article or list.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I did not get your point of merge. What merge? To which title? All these articles should be speedily deleted. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In theory, each of these articles should be merged into Timeline of Indian history, which is my suggestion. I am more or less fine with speedy deletion of all of them, as they tend not to have meaningful content.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Are there any guidelines on how to list an entire set of articles for deletion like the whole sets of these articles or Afd is to be applied to them separately. Solomon7968 (talk) 17:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century.  There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Consensus here appears to be "merge", but I want to point out that there are a dozen similar articles at AfD (that should have been bundled) with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (1500 in India) for the time being. czar   &middot;   &middot;  15:47, 30 May 2013 (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.