Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2160s

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2160s 2130s 2240s

I don't know if more future decades entries exists, those were the ones I could find. Basically, same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2110s since pretty much the same.

A quick start:

  • 2110s was afd'd (and had 4 previous deletions).
  • 2120s has been deleted almost 20 times
  • 2140s has been deleted 15 times

and int continues on and on and on... Not much of these "decades" exist already. For instance, 2610s is a redirect to 27th century (and it's the only decade with an entry). The information found in the few existing is a duplicate of what is found on each year entry. For instance

2134 Comet Halley makes a return to the inner solar system - the previous return would be in 2061.

is content which already belongs to 2134 (which redirects to 22nd century) so the only new content is

The Decade as a Whole. This decade is expected to be called the "twenty-one thirties".

The last AFD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2110s -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete them all and speedy recreations of decade articles way into the future - there might even be a case for protections. Nothing useful can be said about them this far away. Capitalistroadster 01:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Probably Delete, although predictable events such as astronomical forecasts are at least legitimate (i.e., these are not Star Trek events).
Yes but such events are detailed on the particular year entry. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 2160s as empty. Keep 2130s as containing verifiable astrological events. Rename, merge and redirect 2240s to USS Enterprise if not there already. - Mgm|(talk) 08:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and populate with astronomical events. CalJW 08:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and protect: These decades have been deleted on multiple occasions, which means that our goof troop authors have some dedication to miscreation. If we fill them with astronomy, we're going to have them come along and overwrite the content with the usual "This is the year that Jimmy will die in a bizarre accident involving a roll of toilet paper!!!!!" Geogre 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you can't speedy delete it as patent nonsense, then delete Stifle 15:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all for now. By the time it hits 2140, I assure you, 2140s will be back. :) Jacqui★ 16:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect all such decades to their centuries. For example, 2110s, 2120s, 2130s, 2140s etc. would redirect to the 22nd century. 2240s would redirect to 23rd century. 64.194.44.220 16:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the appropriate centuries. Foogol 18:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to century. Perhaps a policy is needed for when the events in a decade pass some threshold count, then create a decade page (or category). --StuffOfInterest 19:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one of the most vacuous pages I've seen in AfD so far. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 00:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect ot the appropriate centuries for these decades. Foosher 02:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete They can worry about it then...unless someone knows the distant future. MONGO 01:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the most important thing that an encyclopedia can document is the future. Klonimus 01:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect all future years with two or less unique pieces of unique content (like the Halley's comet factoid), and merge the unique content where it exists. -Sean Curtin 01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary unless verifiable events can be added (astronomical) or as a fictional element in some sort of TV canon. --Drno007 07:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No useful information there. I mean, we could make an article on the sixty-two fifties (6250s) but how would that be useful? --85.49.229.165 19:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Very very strong oppose, there are astronomical events predicted on these dates (not mentioned on the article but obviously something will happen). These "future" artilces are usefull no less than for example 2010, instead of waisting AfD space why not expand them? Besides, they will only be recreated. Additionaly we could get a bot to create "stub" years ready to be expanded. Please use AfD strictly for articles that have no way of being encyclopedic, in 150 years the article 2160 would be a rather large article, although none of us likely will be around :(. You know this really feels depressing... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A scond though is redirecting it to its century since that would be more usefull... --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:27, 29 November 2005 (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.