Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007


 * 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 speedy keep, WP:SNOW. Perhaps a discussion on the village pump would be a better idea? Proto  ►  22:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

2007

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

To start, I am not making a point (any claims to the contrary are not assuming good faith nor understand what WP:POINT means). This nomination stems from List of The Daily Show guests being deleted (here) for a second time for failing WP:NOT for two reasons applicable here:
 * WP:NOT &mdash; it is a list of indiscriminate information
 * WP:NOT &mdash; it is a directory

Subsequently, I fail to see how this article (and the thousands like it) are any different.

First, the individual items in this article have absolutely no correlation with each other other than when they occur, which makes them indiscriminate. From WP:NOT#IINFO:
 * That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Every one of these articles fits this: just because something happened does not mean it is suitable for Wikipedia.

Second, the items in this article consist of a "directory" because it is a list of loosely related items. The only thing binding these events together is when they happen. Two completely unrelated events having only time relating them is no different than two unrelated companies listed in the yellow pages because they live in the same city.

I am nominating this because policy currently can be interpreted that lists such as this and guests on a very popular and very notable television show are indiscriminate directories and have no encyclopedic value.

So what does current policy say to you? Does a list of events that are completely unrelated to each other except when (e.g., February 20) or where (e.g., 2006 in the United Kingdom) they occur indiscriminate? Cburnett 15:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Utterly strong keep -- Holy Jesus, Mohammed, and Moses (add any other deities, prophets, or saints you want)!  That being said, I will assume good faith and reply to the points you have raised.
 * Firstly, WP:NOT does not apply here because there is a discriminating criterion (time of occurrence). For the case of "Year by Country" articles, there are two discriminating criteria.  This criterion may not be the best, but it is a discriminating criterion nonetheless.
 * Secondly, none of the three items listed at WP:NOT apply here: this is not a business directory (#3) or a geneological/phonebook entry (#2). I think your argument applies to #1: a list of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons.  However, I think this is too much of a stretch to try to apply this here.  "Year" entries are not merely lists of (loosely-associated) people.  They are lists of people that were born/died and events that took place in a specific (and relatively short) period of time.
 * Thirdly, these articles qualify per WP:LIST as informative, helping navigation (especially this one), and aiding development of new articles, so they should definitely be kept.
 * Fourthly, this is nothing like the yellow pages, etc., because all of the events/persons listed in "Year" articles are notable, whereas companies listed in the a business directory need not be. Black Falcon 18:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Black Falcon. This is obviously a discriminate list. It is the march of time which is determining inclusion, not the judgement of an editor. (Also, while the cited Daily Show guest list is clearly a more arguable case either way, it actually does look like a no-consensus keep at this point; thus, no precedent.) --Dhartung | Talk 18:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No-brainer Keep because, duh, history is encyclopedic. The day historical events happened is pretty bloody important to any discussion of the event and an idex-type article of those events is perfectly appropriate. I have already commented on the TDS guest list nomination so I won't drag that discussion here any more than has already happened. Otto4711 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep not buying it. Just because someone claims they're not acting in bad faith nor violating WP:POINT doesn't mean they aren't. JuJube 19:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep However, while we're talking WP:NOT, we need to kill "References to 2007 in fiction" now. It's well on its way to becoming yet another naff piece of bloated, unverified, OR fanlistcruft. By the way, nominating an obvious-keep article for deletion, in response to an AfD decision that you disagree with, most definitely is WP:POINT. -- Islay Solomon  |  talk  19:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. The current year is notable. I can source it by the calender on my wall, or if you prefer, you can look at my date stamp.   For the record, because you disagree with the reason being offered for a deletion somewhere else, you're nominating an obviously valid article because "it fits the same criteria and therefore should be deleted".  Not only does that assume that we're proving non-notability (notability can be reached in several ways, and only one is needed to be included, not the other way around), but it's most definitely disrupting to prove a point, despite what you think.  --UsaSatsui 21:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to see how a list of Daily Show guests corresponds to a listing of events in the year 2007. I believe that a 2007 article has great value, and far more then any television show.  Why bring up the Daily Show in your argument? If you believe an article needs to be deleted state the reasons why you think so, don't compare to another article or example ( see WP:POINT).  It sounds as if you have nominated this article to use as a soapbox ( see WP:NOT) your argument to delete a listing of the Daily Show guests. If you wish to nominate an article for deletion simply list why you feel that way. In any case I feel an article on the current year of 2007 is of some significance. Jka02 21:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Sorry, but for me there really is no question here. Removing the 2007 article would justify removing the article for every previous year, which is clearly out of the question. What better thing to put in an encyclopaedia than a record of events? The article is undoubtedly useful. Further, it seems completely inappropriate to compare this article to that of Daily Show contestants -- from the perpective of a British person, I've probably watched the Daily Show twice. This one's a no-brainer for me.. matt . smart  talk /  contribs  21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per everyone above. Admittedly, the nearest the nominator comes to WP:POINT is the comment which suggests that nominating several articles for deletion in order to make a point is a bad thing (to my knowledge, only one is nominated), but that's roughly as close as one can come to it without actually going over the edge. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A list of events in 2007 is encylopedic because an article about the year 2007 would be far to long considering all the significant events that could happen. The nomination is comparing apples to oranges. No one is going to look up lists that the nominator mentioned, but it is likly people will look up this list to see events from this year.--Dacium 22:02, 15 February 2007 (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.