Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1330s in architecture
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 merge. Petros471 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains one single piece of information, the article is of poor standard, has numerous headings with no information attached and has been terribly written. Anthony 14:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Are you intending on only nominating this, and not 1320s in architecture, 1340s in architecture etc? All are encyclopedic; at worst a merge to 14th Century in architecture is warranted, not a deletion of one of them. Batmanand | Talk 15:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 14th Century architecture, along with the other articles Batmanand mentioned, stub, and expand to actually describe 14th century architecture if this gets sourced. Otherwise, delete as unverifed...These are not even articles; these are one item "lists". --Isotope23 16:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Isotope23. In fact this (14th century) should all just be one article. --WillMak050389 16:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above will381796 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and reform the structure of Timeline of architecture. Pre-18th century should be combined per century, not per decade, in articles. Otherwise, each one of them will remain a stub. --Thunderhead 22:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into 14th Century in architecture. No objection to re-creation of decade-specific stubs later if they look like they'll be considerably longer than this, though. Grutness...wha? 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge though with some reluctance. There is a vast expanse of "Timeline articles" detailing some period in, in some subject with mediating levels of encyclopedic merit. As a whole, I think Wikipedia needs to re-evaluate the place these articles should have in the project. I am partial to Thunderhead's suggestion and I think that should be considered for the other subjects as well. 205.157.110.11 09:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Either keep or merge - we need articles like this - Blood red sandman 14:47, 27 August 2006 (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.