Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of years in New Zealand


 * 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   no consensus. L Faraone  00:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

List of years in New Zealand

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a link farm. While I can understand the argument about it being useful for navigation, that's what navboxes are for. This should be a nice neat template at the bottom of each year article, not a stand-alone article with no content other than bluelinks. Grutness...wha?  12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep "that's what navboxes are for" - per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Per WP:CLN is a reason for deletion and replacement by a navbox, not a reason for keeping. Grutness...wha?  01:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Aids in navigation, and no valid reason given to delete it. Nothing gained by it not being on the Wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  14:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Linkfarm" is a valid reason for deletion. "Better as a template" is also a valid reason for deletion. Grutness...wha?  01:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Categories, lists, and navigation templates You can not destroy one thing, because you like something else better. There is no reason why something can not exist as a category, list, and a navigational template.   And that's not a linkfarm, its a legitimate navigational aid.   D r e a m Focus  14:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - for now. my point of view has now changed from 3 years ago due to being on the wrong side of a new digital divide: more than 2/3 of my internet access is by smartphone, with an affordability cap of 2GB a month. neither the Android app nor the mobile version of Wikipedia give access to the category system (or talk pages!). And large navboxes chew data quota (which is why I created the small nav template at the top of the page). This is the norm for Wikipedia users in many developing countries, and clearly needs to be addressed. I am going to have to let the bot sign for me as the virtual keyboard doesn't have a tilde. (I'm now at work and the bot hasn't visited, so: dramatic (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I created this list 7 years ago on the basis that many other similar articles existed at that time. I presume by the fact that there are still so many that they are useful and must have (mostly) survived any similar attempts at Afd. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * There are about 15 similar articles for countries (hardly what would be classed as "many") by the looks of it. Not sure that WP:OTHERSTUFF is a useful argument for keeping, though. Grutness...wha?  09:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see the usefulness. Anyone that can find that list can change the year in the browser and find the next one without some list. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone that voted keep. Using an article as a category or navbox is inappropriate.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's "inappropriate" because Chris Troutman says so? Our guidelines and widespread practice say the opposite. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have WP:CLN on your side. Listcruft (an essay, not a guideline) explains my point of view. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN and WP:LISTPURP. There's some navigational utility to having links to all the years on one page; Category:Years in New Zealand has them split by subcategory. A reader may wish to use tabbed browsing to open mutiple years at once. Preserving this list also allows editors to experiment with different ways of organizing the links for better presentation (i.e., that whole "Wikipedia is a work in progress" thing we're supposed to live by here), while deleting would close that door for absolutely no benefit. I would think a navbox with over 200 links would be a rather cumbersome thing to add to any article, and would have more restricted formatting capabilities. postdlf (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We usually handle these through categories, preferably with a by century, rather than by decade parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This should be done by category or navbox....William 16:48, 2 June 2013 (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.