Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2123

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 2525; No consensus for the rest. Default action is to merge all years to their respective centuries. Deathphoenix ʕ 13:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2123

I don't think any individual year, beyond the 21st century, can be notable enough to a have a page of its own. Also, most of the information on these pages is repeated either on the corresponding decade or century page Philip Stevens 06:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason. Philip Stevens 06:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • 2126
  • 2161
  • 2239
  • 2240
  • 2243
  • 2245
  • 2276
  • 2280
  • 2285
  • 2119
  • 2121
  • 2151
  • 2315
  • 2381
  • 2390
  • 2401
  • 2490
  • 2525
  • 2552

• Delete concur with nom. Waste of time - some of these entries have no value at all as they only contain entries related to minor future-set fiction. SM247 06:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete anything where the only entries are "In Star Trek/Halo/Time Splitters". Also Delete any with "it will be the 300/200/100th Anniversary of World War 2/Founding of the U.S.". The others where there are entries for astronomical events are debatable but preferably Delete those too, since if I want to know when a solar/lunar eclipse occurs I won't go hunting through year pages. Actually... you can probably just delete the lot and not lose anything at all. - Motor (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above and WP:NOT a crystal ball which seems like thats all they could ever be. Ydam 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non encyclopedic. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 22nd century and the others to their centuries --Astrokey44 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 2525 due to reference in Zager and Evans song In the Year 2525. SJennings 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all to their respective centuries per convention. -- Kicking222 14:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Hera1187 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Redirect alll. I was inclined towards a weak keep for 2525, but anything regarding that year is included in In the Year 2525 and Zager and Evans. Fluit 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all but 2525 for reaosns above and nom. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 18:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to delete that one, too, since that information could be placed on a page combining all of these things. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep 2240, see its previous VfD (result was keep). -- Jeandré, 2006-06-06t19:32z
• Delete all except 2525 per User:SJennings. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all to respective centuries. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all including 2525 as per nom. Bwithh 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The years that have pages are random and sporadic, and those which have pages don't need them anyway. If a coherent strategy had been adopted for the creation of such pages there might be incentive to keep them, but since they are so far in the future there hasn't been, so there is not.Greg Stevens 22:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all except possibly 2161 and 2525 I think these two are significant/iconic enough to warrant their current status, but the rest are pretty arcane references. Also, designing a coherent policy for these and all such future entries seems to be in order--redirecting queries to a single page for each century would totally solve this issue. Kyuss-Apollo21:10, 6 June 2006
• Merge per Arthur R. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Arthur R. — RJH (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the little pages and organize the information contained therein better. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge all info into their respective centuries. Although, it may mostly be there already. Grandmasterka 06:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I think the people who say Delete, Redirect or Merge, want pretty much the same thing. I should point out to those who want to merge that most of the information on these pages is already on the relevant century pages.
• Delete all including the exceptions...nearly any year of the form 2XYZ can include the 1000th anniversary of what ever occurred in the corresponding year 1XYZ. Doesn't make them notable for that reason. And as for fictional occurrences in these years, keep the fiction in the fiction article (Trek or whatever). Carlossuarez46 17:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, redirect 2525 to In the Year 2525 --Zoz (t) 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing occured in the future as of yet. Nobody can predict the future, but let's hope humanity will still be around by then. Nobody can live to the year 2552 unless you're a 4000-year old bristlecone pine tree. + 207.200.116.133 08:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per all of the above Deleuze 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete any of these pages containing only anniversaries; Keep all pages which have their own inherent properties, particularly 2525. Matchups 18:00, 15 June 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.