Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 in Costa Rica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was nomination withdrawn. While I honestly thought this would be fairly straight-forward based on my past experience, the discussion below presents undeniable consensus in favor of keeping the articles and brings up a number of good points that I cannot refute. As such, I am withdrawing the nomination. --jonny-mt 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2007 in Costa Rica

2007 in Costa Rica (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Large bundled nomination of this and similar articles created by the same editor. Despite the overall high quality of each article, Wikipedia is not a news source.

Although I named this discussion after the most recent article, I am including the following articles in the nomination as well:

Hopefully I haven't missed any. --jonny-mt 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep -- I'm not sure I see the rationale behind deleting all of these, since Wikipedia has both lots of articles about current events and lots of articles about years. And these articles aren't reporting on the news -- they're recaps of things that happened. If the articles themselves are high quality, as you say, then why not keep them? They seem to all be produced by the same author, but if they aren't copyvios and are cited they seem like fine examples of lists. Not what I would spend my time doing, perhaps, but definitely within the almanac-side of the encyclopedia. -- phoebe/(talk) 05:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) To be honest, I did the whole nomination by hand, and so it's entirely possible that I was simply too tired to fully elaborate on my reasons. Basically, the WP:NOT#NEWS rationale applies to their status as indiscriminate lists--rather than focusing on a specific event, such as a timeline of World War II, they are simply reporting on events that, with a couple of exceptions, are not necessarily notable. This falls under the above policy, which notes that "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." As these are simply collections of news stories that are not notable in and of themselves (despite the fact that they involve notable topics), I consider them as falling under this heading.
Additional background for this nomination can be found in Articles for deletion/Current events in Hong Kong. Although the scale is a little different (given months in a single city vs. given years in a single country), I believe these two nominations are the same in substance. It is also worth noting that current and historical news is typically covered by a country or region's portal, which means that these articles are redundant to Portal:Antarctica, Portal:Brazil, Portal:China, etc. --jonny-mt 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all. Established encyclopedias like Encarta have articles like these: [1], [2], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 06:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all. How is 2007 news? Seems to me it's history. We do history, right? --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad faith from nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep all The difference between these and the current events articles is that these are listing truly notable regional historical events not "news", as well as listing births deaths and incumbent leaders. There's nothing wrong with lists and as others have stated, encyclopedias often contain almanac style lists such as these. There are year-based articles for every year in Australia from 1788 to 2008, it would be a shame to see these deleted based on what I see as a very dubious interpretation of WP:NOT#NEWS. What is the difference between these and the regular year articles such as 2008 based on the nominator's rationale? --Canley (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (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.