Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000-1491: Environmental events

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. But I will speak in defense of Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön) a bit: Alan, please see Columbian exchange. —Kurykh 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1000-1491: Environmental events

1000-1491: Environmental events (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The timeline has no clear focus on a particular topic. It covers natural events, fires in cities, human health etc. This is effectively a history timeline. Other timelines have the same information but with a better focus on a topic. The chosen time period is arbitary. Alan Liefting 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 11:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep for now. The rationale for deletion is unconvincing to me, and speaks more to the need for cleanup and referencing. It would help if someone could cite similar articles that the nom is hinting at (I couldn't find it from a quick search in the category.) Shalom ^Hello 13:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The afd is covered by Timeline of environmental events, List of historic fires and others at Category:Timelines. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Articles like this serve an indexing function. Not sure what sort of references would be needed for this list, at least for those elements that link to specific articles; the brief statements in a list should be referenced there rather than here. The cutoff date is hardly arbitrary: in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and that date is reasonably selected as ushering in a new period in human interaction with the environment. There really isn't a clear reason given as to why this should be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you see Columbus as an "ushering in a new period in human interaction with the environment"? If this is the case should the timeline extend after this date. I could perhaps also argue that the arrival of the first humans on the American continent is a more important date. The early humans caused numerous extinctions - the same scenario as with other areas. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I see no reason to keep lists of events that are only notable through bias or aren't really necessary. If something big did happen, the event would be given its own page, so the non-notable and unnecessary events are there based on the notability of others. Information is redundant and not neceesary for an encyclopedia. NobutoraTakeda 14:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC) This user has been banned and !vote has been stricken. [1]
• Delete. This list has no clear inclusion criteria - there is no attempt to define or explain what an "environmental event" is. It appears to be largely an attempt to make a list of natural disasters, which would be better handled by List of disasters and its children, but then again this also attempts to catalogue various and largely unrelated events such as construction projects and technological advancements. As per the nominator, the list has no clear focus whatsoever. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 16:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per "list of loosely associated items" I'd have no problem with it if it was List of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes etc Corpx 18:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I am unconvinced that the chosen start and end dates are not arbitrary, and that the inclusion criteria for this list are clear or can be made clear. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — mholland (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete environmental events seems to be a cross-section of natural disasters, food shortages (caused by ?), fires (caused by ?), and anything else that killed, starved, or made lots of people unhappy. The selection will always be POV and subjective unless we limit to List of volcanic eruptions, List of famines, List of tsunamis, List of earthquakes, etc. (at least two of which we aparently already have: famines & earthquakes). Carlossuarez46 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's historical. I would like to see more like this, although the list would grow exponentially as you reach present day. ~ Infrangible 01:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

See Timeline of environmental events. It covers the complete history of the Earth rather than a short, arbitrary period. Alan Liefting 06:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The idea is a good one, but currently this list is defined only with very vague criteria. What precisely is an "environmental event"? It's not explained, and thus we have everything from a famine to the building of a canal. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Infrangible or merge with Timeline of environmental events per Alan Liefting. Bearian 21:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Please see the discussion at Talk:1000-1491: Environmental events. -- Wavelength 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs clarification and definite improvements, but I think it has potential. --Android Mouse 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

A clarification would be to rename it as "1000-1491: Natural events" and delete the very small number of events that relate to human activity. Alan Liefting 22:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment it has no intro, the time period is arbitrary and the events are multiple. Narrow it down and put it in context, otherwise Delete it. Darrenhusted 22:59, 22 July 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.