Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recent past


 * 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   merge to National Register of Historic Places. Note that this requires a redirect for licensing reasons, see WP:MERGE, if any content of substance is merged.  Sandstein  19:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent past

 * – ( View AfD View log )

undefined and nonconstant concept. There are articles on years, decades, and generations that fulfill time period covered in more defined and constant way. Sky Machine  ( ++ ) 08:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a dictionary definition of the article title and original research at that. Maybe the "50 year rule" is notable, but the term "recent past", whilst common, doesn't form the basis for an article. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Move to Fifty-year rule (not leaving a redirect, since the search term "recent past" is quite unlikely to relate to this topic). --Lambiam 14:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indifferent about keeping the content, but agree with move and no redirect if it's kept, per Lambiam. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Move/no redirect, but since it is all about a criterion for including in the US National Register of Historic Places, I wonder whehter it might not be better merely being merged there (without a redirect, if possible). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/no redirect to US National Register of Historic Places as suggested by Peterkingiron. The information seems much more appropriate there than as a stand-alone article. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge/no redirect to US National Register of Historic Places is most logical thing to do. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:05, 8 February 2012 (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.