Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of '1995 in' articles


 * 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 all, including Template:Lists of 'year in' articles. @pple complain 18:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

List of '1995 in' articles

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Does not add anything more that what the categories, articles and templates already do. It also adds "clutter" to WP and needs ongoing maintenance. The appropriate year article eg. 1995, 1996 is a better and more developed set of articles that does more that the ones I have put up for deletion. Also the Special:PrefixIndex with a search string of "XXXX in" where XXXX is the year will achieve better results. Yet another way to search is  for example.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as an aid to maximise navigation for the users of WP. Categories and lists go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. "Also the Special:PrefixIndex with a search string of "XXXX in" where XXXX is the year will achieve better results." Maybe so, but I doubt the average user will know how to do that.  Lugnuts  (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The extra advantage in navigation for readers is negligible. As I have stated, individual year articles with their templates are better developed and sell served with templates to make navigation and maintenance easier. Also, are editors doing to produce these "List of" article for future years as well as all the years prior to 1995? Obviously, to avoid recentism there needs to be a series of these article going back as far as possible. The individual year articles go back thousands of years. I cannot see that happening with this series of lists. Granted, the search using Special:PrefixIndex is not likely to be used by most readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all seventeen. Among the advantages of lists are the ability to include items which don't have their own articles (as in List of malls in Toronto) and to discuss the entries beyond a mere listing (as in List of centenarians (miscellaneous)).  This article, on the other hand, has no benefit beyond what a category would provide and simply adds to the maintenance burden of creating new articles. Matchups 19:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely redundant with categories, although I find the "maintenance burden" argument unconvincing: WP:DEADLINE/WP:NOTPAPER, and inclined me to !v keep until I saw the articles themselves, which add absolutely no advantage over what a "XXXX in" category tree would do. The keep argument on the advantage of extra navigation is unconvincing because anyone searching for these articles would probably do it using search tools for the specific "XXXX in" article, rather than a list of them, and semi-automated info-mining tools generally use categories as they are guranteed machine readable, unlike articles. So I guess delete is correct in this case, but arguing for deletion in a project with millions of editors and very easy to use editing tools based on burden seems a little far-out...--Cerejota (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep these articles are undoubtedly much more helpful then searching stuff in categories. It makes navigation faster and more comfortable. It shouldn't be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aro777 (talk • contribs)
 * But the individual year articles such as 1995, 1996 etc are immeasurably superior for navigation than these articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles need references, without them these need to be deleted Stuartyeates (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all does nothing the categories don't doCurb Chain (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all as a set of content and navigation forks. We already have excellent well-maintained articles on years. At the top right of each of those pages, a useful template Template:C20 year in topic makes all the pertinent connections. It is possible the template needs improving a bit. Recommend we redirect each of these deleted pages to the appropriate year article. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2011 (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.