Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 in Nagaland


 * 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 delete. Consensus is this article does not meet criteria for notability. As the other years' articles were not tagged, nor formally discussed I'm taking no action as far as deletion or merging. Star  Mississippi  14:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

1963 in Nagaland

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Perhaps, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources discussing events of 1963 in particular in this Indian state of Nagaland as a topic of scholarly interest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)  Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , would it be possible to nom 1964 in Nagaland, 1965 in Nagaland, 1966 in Nagaland, 1967 in Nagaland, 1968 in Nagaland and 1969 in Nagaland here as well? None of them are notable on their own and are indescriminate, but maybe together could be merged into 1960s in Nagaland (although that itself is possibly too niche a subject and it could be argued all of them should be deleted as well). If you don't want to do a mass nomination, I totally understand. I don't normally love them myself, but I think it might make sense in this case. TartarTorte 19:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – Well, I don't think that even 1960s in Nagaland would be a notable topic. I would argue for deleting all the articles, from 1963 to 2022 in Nagaland. But perhaps, for group nomination, it is often a good idea to only list one article at AfD and see how it goes, before listing an entire group (WP:MULTIAFD). If this is deleted, I'll support and nominate for deletion, all 60 articles in Template:Years in Nagaland. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I definitely agree on lack of notability. Seeing as there's no real ATD it seems like the only option at hand is delete. TartarTorte 19:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information then why are there thousands of other (1963 in elsewhere) articles out here? If you can nominate this article then please nominate the other thousands of (1963 in...) articles. User:The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @ – Hi! I understand that you created all these articles in good faith, to improve the coverage of Nagaland on Wikipedia. But, the articles have nothing other than few dates and officeholders, and that does not help the encyclopedia. The argument presented in your keep vote is something which should be avoided in a deletion discussion (See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). If you want to contribute to the history of Nagaland, better improve this article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, you can also nominate 1963 in India, 1963 in the United States, etc because these articles also have nothing other than few dates and officeholders. User:The Anonymous Earthling (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll still wait to see what the outcome of this discussion is before nominating other similar articles of Nagaland. I think "1963 in the United States" has some coverage in relevant sources, but the existence of that article should not be a reason to keep this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the completeness of the US and India article is more reason to keep than the Nagaland article. There is no 1963 in New York for example. I don't like jumping into WP:WAX arguments that much, but I feel that is more apples-to-apples comparison within WAXy territory. TartarTorte 13:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Like every other Indian state, Nagaland is unique (different race, religion, lifestyle, etc). Would be bias if this is not included. We also have countless other similar sub-national articles like 2018 in New York City, 2014 in Maharashtra, etc User:The Anonymous Earthling —(talk) 10:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that would not be biased. We have article on September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market, that does not mean we should create articles for every other month. We don't look for completeness, we look for notability. Do you have any sources which asserts that "1963 in Nagaland" is a topic of scholarly research? I can simply take any newspaper for any random date, and create article for any month, but that would not make it notable. Nagaland is of-course a unique state, but that does not make the article in question notable. And if there are other articles, non-notable as this is, they all would eventually be deleted. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the articles listed, 2018 in New York City is not notable and I'll be AfDing that shortly. 2014 in Maharashtra should also probably be AfD'd to be honest. None of these articles are really notable enough for their own article. TartarTorte 14:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * WAXy update: 2018 in New York City was deleted in an AfD along with a few similar year articles for New York City (see Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City. TartarTorte 00:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There are not sufficient sources that provide significant coverage that demonstrates that this year, in his state, is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, list articles like this makes it easier to find a particular article based on years and also the expand list section indicates that there are more notable events that might be included in the future. YticagaS (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @: If something is helpful, that does not mean it should have its own Wikipedia article. Like I have said before, "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". The topic is simply not notable, and if it is, I'll appreciate you providing reliable sources asserting the same. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:48, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Weak Delete - If there were any articles about notable events in Nagaland that happened in this year, I would support the existence of this article as a useful navigation tool But as things currently stand, there's nothing to navigate to except for two politicians, which would likely be more easily navigated to via infoboxes within the office position's article or any historical position holder's article. If articles on notable events in Nagaland are created in the future, I would support the recreation or undeletion of this one. Fieari (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: surely the purpose of this article is better served by a navigation template or a category...? -- asilvering (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete: Merge and redirect all of the individual pages into a single page 1960s in Nagaland. Once it starts to get some more information on the page a split can be proposed which I would support at that time. The combined page can highlight themes in a way that individual years cannot. For example a summary and timeline section for the 1960s on the 16 point agreement https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IN_600726_The%20sixteen%20point%20Agreement_0.pdf and bits from https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nagaland-insurgency-and-the-efforts-to-solve/ Gusfriend (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.