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 no consensus. Discussion leans slightly towards keeping but there is no real consensus over whether this is a valid article or not. Davewild (talk) 07:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1884 in Mexico[edit]

1884 in Mexico lacks notability. The information here should be included in the 1884 page or on the Mexico page. ~~No other years seem to have pages for the 'XXXX in Mexico' format.~~ Gr0ff (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are indeed other xxxx in Mexico articles, I didn't realize that. So I guess it's not redundant. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, contrary to the nomination, there are plenty of other articles on years in Mexico (I make it 17 blue links), and many similar articles on years in other countries. This is a pretty standard and very encyclopedically useful way of organising information. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the List of years in Mexico page somewhat legitimizes the 1884 in Mexico page, but it seems redundant to have a page for each year for each country. Furthermore, I can't seem to find any other countries that have a 'List of years in XXX' page. It would certainly make more sense to have sub-sections under each year to divide events geographically. -199.67.138.154 (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment see Category:19th century years by country for many, many, many other examples (not just Mexico). Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that there are other articles about single years in one particular country does not in any way imply that this article should be kept; on the contrary, it just serves to point out that there are other articles that need to be deleted. Having articles for every year and for every country is completely unnecessary; such a decentralized presentation of information lacks context and would better be placed in an article on the history of that country. In fact, that's precisely what history articles are for! --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Different strokes for different folks. Sure, sometimes you'll want an article that identifies trends and provides in-depth analysis. But when you just want to do some quick fact-checking, it's a lot easier to use a simple, straightforward timeline. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually, Mai Pen Rai makes a good argument for Redirect, not delete, as "(year) in (country)" is a pretty likely search term. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, bad precedent to set. There are many years, and many countries. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stifle, I agree that this is a horrible and non-maintainable precedent to set. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Considering that there is a concerted drive to remove all links to years, the year pages such as 1884 will be orphaned soon. This may be the way to go about showing some context when linking to dates in articles. Corvus cornix_talk 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has an infinite number of combinations that will ultimately be unmaintainable --Banime (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real encyclopedias, like Encarta, have articles like this. (Encarta only goes back to 1938 for some reason - doesn't mean that nothing happened in 1884, though.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a good way to organize information. Essentially a list article, and justified by the standards there. I would certainly encourage these in all cases where there is enough material. That we don't have others does not mean we should delete what we do have. DGG (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the main value of list articles is to identify missing articles, which this is not what this article is about. The evetns named are NN in world terms and should not be merged with 1884. If they are notable in terms of Mexican history, they should be merged into a suitable article on that or some aspect of it. I have come across articles of this kind for other countries, but they are not very useful. There appear to be a few others for Mexico, mostly with even less content, and would recommend a mass cull of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be a valid part of the years-by-country tree, pointed out above. If there is an issue with the notability of the contents, then it should be redirected to a more encompassing article about Mexico's history, but, definitely not deleted. Neier (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is other (year) in Mexico articles, I don't feel any of them is comprehensive enough to have their own articles. 90% of them aren't referenced and all of the dates can be included in the 1884 article. Its simply just redundant information that isn't necessary. Tavix (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [1] has the full list. If this one is deleted, I don't see why the others can't be put up for deletion as well. Tavix (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete them, then you should delete everything in Category:Years_by_country. Don't just pick on Mexico; pick on the US and the UK, too. Zagalejo^^^ 19:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. I picked Mexico because that is the article that we are arguing about right now. Tavix (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is simply a convenient way of organizing historical information and is done for other countries as well. Bob (QaBob) 19:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic clearly can meet the GNG and WP:V without missing a beat. The real question in my mind is if this is a reasonable organizational structure. That is an editorial decision and not a good topic for an AfD. Hobit (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems valid enough, and the problems with organisation are not deletion-worthy. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can see readers using this type of article to take an overview of the events of a particular year. The quality of the various pages does, to be fair, vary enormously and this one is somewhere near the bottom. However, if we are to have them then we should make the list of them as comprehensive as possible otherwise the gaps will simply serve to irritate. I understand the arguments of the delete !voters but blowing small holes in such a complex category structure is not the way to go. If this type of page is not considered suitable then an overarching discussion should be started. Smile a While (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.