Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1964 in Nagaland

1964 in Nagaland

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 in Nagaland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City, I nominate this article, along with 57 other articles from deletion.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources asserting the "[X year] in Nagaland" is a topic for scholarly research. It fail WP:GNG, and thus shoudl be deleted. As for the alternative of redirecting it to Timeline of Naga history, I am opposed to it. Vast majority of these lists are incomplete; there is nothing significant to merge and redirect to the main timeline article. Also, even "1970s/1980s/etc. in Nagaland" would not be notable. Let me add that these lot pages are not nominated due to them being incomplete, that is a secondary issue. The primnary issues here is lack of notability, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability.

The complete list of pages nominated for deletion are:

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom and related discussions. Honestly the pages in question could have been WP:PRODED rather than taking all of them to AfD in my opinion. If strong consensus is established I'd recommend a patrolling admin WP:SNOW delete these pages so this process isn't needlessly dragged out. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, @Qwaiiplayer: The reason why I did not PROD them is because in the previous discussion, there were three users !voting 'weak delete', so I though there is some room for more discussion and more clear consensus whether we need pages like this, classifying annual history of a geographical subdivision. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per emerging consensus that this content does not fit absent a particularly notable year. Not a BIAS issue as there's broad consensus these aren't notable no matter the city. Agree with nom, PROD likely would hve been challenged so this saves a step. Star Mississippi 20:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. indiscriminate collection of information. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Not enough content to justify separate articles. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but note that the prolific creator of these pages, The Anonymous Earthling, is currently creating pages for all of the districts listed in List of districts of Nagaland, such as Niuland district and these are essentially unsourced, or lean heavily on non-RS (Kohima district). Does anyone have the energy to look at these and perhaps engage with the editor to head off future cleanup? Lamona (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as indiscriminate list. AnM2002 (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and if the nominator would be kind, please go through other, similarly futile articles created by the editor who wrote these.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]