Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1528 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   keep. This should be a editing issue, not an AfD one. Black Kite (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

1528 in India

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no scope for improvement and finding reference better to remove all articles in 1500 series and create a new one like 1500-1600 In India if necessary. Benedictdilton (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sir  Rcsprinter,  Bt  (barney)  @ 23:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep of course there is room for growth--actually great room for growth, because  our coverage of Indian history is still rather sketchy. Even if we did merge, we'd merge to decades, not centuries. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this and all similar articles nominated for deletion as these have good potential to grow over time. India was/is a large country and surely there would be a number of notable events across India in those eventful years in its history. Shyamsunder (talk) 02:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all to 1520s in India. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Timeline of Indian history. These are all stubs and even jamming ten of them together will still result in a larger stub.  Why create an amalgamation article when one already exists?  Yes, these topics can grow.  But it makes more sense to start building at the Timeline article and break out portions as appropriate.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. There are a dozen similar (yet unbundled) articles at AfD 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;  16:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has potential for development, and it can be developed as in the case of 1938 in Scotland.Rayabhari (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly? 1938 in Scotland is a link farm stub; it should be deleted, too.  "Potential for development" is not legitimate criteria.  Almost anything could have potential for development.  Each entry is supposed to be developed in order for it to exist.  Otherwise, articles can be userfied, put in the incubator, or put into the AfC process.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "Potential for development" is legitimate criteria, policy in fact; see WP:PRESERVE as well as WP:BEFORE. Timeline/list articles like 1938 in Scotland have zero chance of being deleted. Don't confuse your personal preference with how you would like WP to be run with how it actually is. postdlf (talk) 22:07, 3 June 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.