Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1871 in LGBT rights


 * 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   merge to Timeline of LGBT history. Merge articles by decade The  Helpful  One  16:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

1871 in LGBT rights

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

Redundant as the main article Timeline of LGBT history covers the topic better. DGG has requested for a centralized discussion at User_talk:Unionsoap so I am creating an AFD thread for it. Smallman12q (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

*Delete all as they are Redundant to main article Timeline of LGBT history. The following should also be added to this list to delete
 * Delete - All listed AfD's are for pre-1965 LGBT rights articles. Starting with the 1965 article, there are multiple events per year. Prior to the 1965 article, it's just random specs of blue in a sea of red (and the specs of blue either just have 1 event, or are only a birth of someone that will be notable decades down the road -- for events that are covered in the relevent year's article (decades down the road). Outsider80 (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Change vote: Merge events into decade-based lists, delete births (or century-based list, in the case of the 1870s one) -- Any duplication with "Timeline" is not relevent as the 2 articles have different scopes, & Timeline has never been the "main" article of this series. (see my comment below) Outsider80 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all individual year articles prior to 1960, maybe even 1961 in LGBT rights and 1962 in LGBT rights as well - single events aren't useful in "YEAR in TOPIC" articles, especially when the event is the passing of a law which will later be struck down or the birth of a person who will later become important. Someone needs to resolve the duplication between these articles and the Timeline of LGBT history, though; as it stands, there's a lot of incomplete overlap between the two. One compromise might be to broaden "YEAR in LGBT rights" articles prior to 1960 to decades (i.e, 1950s in LGBT rights), and further broaden it to centuries before 1900 (i.e, 19th century in LGBT rights). This would still leave some empty or underpopulated articles prior to the 18th century, though - any suggestions? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 23:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1969 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1968 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1967 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1966 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1965 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1962 in LGBT rights‎
 * 1961 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1957 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1934 in LGBT rights ‎
 * 1928 in LGBT rights

Unionsoap (talk) 00:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I voted delete on the initial batch of noms, but an important point has to be made here... "Redundant with timeline article" isn't reason enough to delete any lists in the (Year) in LGBT rights series. The "Timeline" list is not, & never has been (afaik), the "main" article to this series. The Timeline list is for LGBT history in general, whereas the (Year) in LGBT rights lists are specific to LGBT rights. Any redundancy is not relevent to the discussion of an AfD (as the 2 articles have different scope). However.... if the issue is that are too many small-size "(Year) in LGBT rights" lists, then a more reasonable proposal IMHO would be merging them into decade lists. This would result in an overlap w/ the 1970s in LGBT rights prose article, though (and also, from around 2000 onward or so, the lists are large enough where I'm not sure merging into a decade list would be a good idea, due to size reasons) Outsider80 (talk) 01:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, mostly because not enough significant events happened in LGBT rights that year. Lists with one or very few items are useless. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge by decade; then there will be enough. This doesnt need afd. DGG (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you suggested for a central discussion and since the articles were being prodded, I figured I would open an afd.Smallman12q (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge per DGG. Drmies (talk) 04:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge by decade. I don't agree with mass deletions, nor do I agree that 'there isn't enough history'. There is LOTS of history, but much of it has always been suppressed/overlooked/unpublished because of bigotry. Pulling it together from tons of obscure sources (where it's often treated without details or references) is a difficult and time consuming job.(glbtq.com is doing yeoman pioneering work here.) Keep in mind that much of this history is just being re-discovered and collated *in these times*. It's not appropriate to confine the history of 100s of millions of people worldwide to one (boring) timeline .... the space WILL be needed later. Count on it. And in case anyone thinks that they can keep this history suppressed, you're nuts. Twang (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG, but I would keep 1969 and 1981 as especially important years. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've merged a couple of these in the past. Merging all to into decade articles seems like a good start. Even the significant years are better treated in the decade, or they have to waste space giving context. Merge by decade (maybe later will need larger grouping for early years).YobMod 07:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge appropriately, this should have preceeded AfD, IMHO. -- Banj e  b oi   19:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into decade style lists. If a yearly breakdown is needed at a later point, then it can be split off.  But as said already, a list with one or two items fails WP:NOTE Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge everything into the main article. If that article becomes too large, it can take out categories, putting them to a side article, with just a summary and link to them.  If any one event is large enough to warrant its own article, then so be it.   D r e a m Focus  12:21, 14 March 2009 (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.