Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 in the United States


 * 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 of the debate was keep, no consensus; keep, whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 in the United States
This series of pages (a quick look indicates it might only be 2004 and 2005) is unnecessary, and as an indication of that, it has gone totally unmaintained. No point in even merging and redirecting; the information is already in the individual year articles. —Cleared as filed. 17:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The year articles in WP already cover the major events from a global perspective. This is redundant information, even if it was fleshed out.   (aeropagitica)   17:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep improve and train the Americans to produce their own monthly articles as several other countries already do. The fact that global news and subject update articles are seen as the appropriate place for minor U.S. news is an aspect of U.S. centrism. CalJW 17:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - like it or not, Wikipedia is kind of US-centric and there's nothing in here that isn't alread in 2005. This is redundant and not prone to being maintained well.  Also I'm turning this into a multinomination, please vote on 2004 in the United States too.  --Cyde Weys  2M-VOTE  21:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not confined to the United States.  1924 in Tonga?  I think not.  Jtmichcock 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jtmichcock. --Revolución (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful summary of year's events in the US. --TimPope 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per TimPope. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Canadian precedent.  Grue   17:07, 19 January 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.


 * 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 of the debate was see above, dude. Johnleemk | Talk 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

2004 in the United States

 * 'Delete per above. --Cyde Weys  2M-VOTE  21:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not confined to the United States.  1924 in Tonga? I think not.  Jtmichcock 22:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both, of course. We have 2005 in Canada, or is your anti-Americanism showing once again?  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this was directed at me (the nominator), but I am an American and obviously have no anti-American bias. My concern is that the articles are pointless because they are not likely to be updated, and what information is there is duplicated from other, better-updated articles. —Cleared as filed. 22:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm from the US as well. I checked out the Canada article and there turns out to be a whole panoply of articles for over a hundred years.  Is this true for any other country?  I stand by my statement that Wikipedia should not isolate these chronologies by country since, no matter what the country, there is almost always going to be some influence to or from another country.  Also, each of the dates, e.g., 2005, has its own universal chronology.  The Canada articles disturb me, however.  I would be extremely reluctant to AfD all of them since so much effort has clearly gone into their production.  By the same token, I think someone should have AfDed the first Canada article when it appeared.  My suggested resolution at this point would be to leave the Canada articles alone, but not let any others be developed and get similarly out of hand.  I realize this is a half-assed resolution, but it is the most equitable I can think of.  Jtmichcock 13:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Canadian articles survived a vote for deletion Kappa 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See also Category:Years by country Kappa 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Jtmichcock. --Revolución (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, some things are important in the context of the US but not in the context of 2005 as a whole. Kappa 18:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep both - When Wikipedia comes close to its goal of "containing all human knowledge", year articles will need to be subdivided quite finely. Scope is the determinant of relevance; the election of a mayor is significant locally but not state-wide; state assembly action has no national meaning but is important locally; U.S. internal goings-on frequently have no impact beyond its borders.  We already acknowledge that many types of information belong in 2005 in sports (or whatever category) but not 2005, but some events transcend to a higher importance and should be listed on the main year article.  This is the same situation but for a country, which seems eminently reasonable to me. - Bantman 19:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep useful summary of year's events in the US. --TimPope 22:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. Incognito 00:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per TimPope. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Canadian precedent.  Grue   17:07, 19 January 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.