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. no prejudice against recreation Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2000s in India

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

currently, just a list of people, with two unsourced statements about trends. I don't see how this can be turned into an article without simply starting over. the only other 'decade' article for India, as far as I can tell, is 1990s in India, which also has problems, although not as severe. on the other hand, the year articles are sensibly formatted (e.g., 2000 in India). Frietjes (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito☸Dutta 04:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start again -- 1990s in India is a substantive article. The annual ones seem to be list of events, which is legitimate. This one however seems to be "People from India notable in the 2000s", which does not make a useful article. At one period, WP had a lot of list articles, with redlinks that enabled needed artiocles to be identified. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron:, so you are suggesting a WP:TNT? Why do you think the version is "hopelessly irreparable"? --Tito☸Dutta 20:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- what would you save? Frietjes (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you aware of events occurred in India in 2000s, then most probably you have also felt that the article has only the basic structure. The names and events mentioned there, mostly they are relevant, and you need to include those once again if you rewrite those. The article requires expansion and not deletion. TNT is not applicable. I am finding older versions of this article better than the current version, So, reversion might be another option too. --Tito☸Dutta 20:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- that old version is really no better. it's still just a list of people and groups with no context. you are better off just deleting it and starting from the year articles to compile an overview. Frietjes (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:SOFIXIT. Per WP:BEFORE - "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." This can be saved and is part of a bigger series. Tag it for cleanup, or be bold and remove parts that aren't needed. Let WP:INDIA know about it, too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- it actually isn't part of a larger series, since there is only one other decade article. no other article in Special:PrefixIndex/2000s_in is formatted this way. removing parts that are not needed would involve blanking the page. Frietjes (talk) 17:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- update, I removed the lists with no context, so now there is basically nothing left. Frietjes (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—with no prejudice against recreation. The 1990's article is a good example. The 2000's article today has two unsourced trivia facts in bullet form. There is no SOFIXIT when there's no content there to begin with. TNT seems appropriate here. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 13:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 20 September 2013 (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.