Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1982 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. Merging can be proposed separately and debated on talk pages in this case. Mango juice talk 03:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

1982 in India
The page is practically empty and has been since its incarnation in 2004. If deleted, nothing is lost, really, but I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if someone expands it. Punkmorten 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless part of a large series (Keep per below), but in this form redundant. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is part of an extensive series (eg. 1981 in India, 1980 in India, etc - just see Category:Indian_history_stubs), and many of these have a distinct paucity of content. Perhaps they could be merged into articles like "1980-1989 in India" to make them a decent length and easier to browse. ~ Matticus78 12:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge at least per decade and preferably into Timeline of Indian history. Otherwise we could have 500,000 of these articles.  332 in the Roman Empire, 1911 in British Honduras, etc.  Eluchil404 12:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect and Merge to an appropriate article, if someone can find one AdamBiswanger1
 * Actually I'm not sure I have a problem with this type of article. It seems to be very useful, and allows more detail than just a vast timeline. AdamBiswanger1 14:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article in its present state is very useful..? (Note that the AFD is not about the type of article) Punkmorten 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but I think that to delete it would only be counterproductive, especially with an article that has both an enormous potential for growth and an enormous number of potential contributors. It's not 1982 in Northwestern Togo.  I'm not a fan of keeping short articles such as this, but when an article will inevitably grow, and the usefulness is so overwhelming, I have to vote keep. AdamBiswanger1 14:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I added this project to the "to do" list for Wikiproject History of India AdamBiswanger1 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note I added this project to the "to do" list for Wikiproject History of India AdamBiswanger1 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect per Eluchil404. -- nae'blis (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as part of series. There is a similar series in Australia which could be used as a model for expansion. You could expand it by listing leaders during 1982, notable events that occurred during the year, births and deaths etc. I am sure that there are resources available especially in India which would allow for the expansion of this article. It is an important country. Capitalistroadster 03:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and write up. Ramseystreet 12:22, 17 July 2006 (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.