Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1922 in the United Kingdom

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 redirect. I figured that was the most sensible compromise - if anybody would like to trawl through the histories and merge any useful information, feel free. m.o.p 05:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 1922 in the United Kingdom

)

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

Lack sources, unencyclopedic. Who would ever come to an encyclopedia for something like this? Srnec (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

—Srnec (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Each of the articles documents notable events which happened in the relevant month. They are mostly under-sourced, so sources should be (and could easily be) found. They need rewriting, too. None of that makes them beyond rescue. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can see its use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robjp21019 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there is not a specific entry in
WP:SYNTH and just opens up the floodgates to 29 February 1912 in Weston-super-Mare and the like. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an annual review/monthly journal/almanac. Agricolae (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge all into their associated Year in the United Kingdom article. Lugnuts (talk) 08:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but much work needed -- I cannot agree merger into a 1922 article, because it would be much too big. There is valuable material in the article, so that deletion should not be an option. BUT: I am not convinced that this is the best way of dealing with things. Many of the sections would be better dealt with elsewhere with a summary and a link in a dated article. In particular, under May, there are three sections dealing with the 1922 budget. This would be better as a free-standing article. I am also concerned that the present title is an invitation for editors to add trivia. HOwever I am not sure how we control that. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The material is unsourced and of no value unless and until somebody sources it, so who is going to do that? The article has basically been an unseen orphan since 2004, when this project was in its infancy (or early childhood). Srnec (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We currently have articles on years (
1 January), all of which provide a slightly different perspective on historical events. I think that covering notable months (and most months are probably notable) provides a different perspective again, which would be useful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- June 1604 in the Ottoman Empire? January 2001 in Tuvalu? April 164 BC in Numidia? How are most month/place combinations notable? We already link together notable events through the articles you mention and through categories. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this isn't about June 1604 in the Ottoman Empire (etc). I do not think there is a need for articles on every month in every place; however, where notable events occur, an article would be helpful. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, clearly. Remove the huge amount of unsourced material and there should be no trouble fitting it in. Neutrality^talk 06:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So merge the only three sourced statements in the January, May and June articles and just delete the rest? I agree. So vote delete. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Most of the content there, though unsourced, could be sourced. Content of Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, not necessarily verified. Most of what is on that page could be reliably sourced. I think the actual issue is whether Wikipedia needs articles about months in specific countries, not whether the article in question is sourced well. Personally, I think that it will bring another, useful, perspective on Wikipedia's coverage of historical events. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all: to 1922 in the United Kingdom. Any verifiable and notable content can be later added to 1922 in the United Kingdom or merged to create a separate topic by going over previous versions. Mattg82 (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2011 (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.