Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/130s BC

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 Keep Sourced content has been added since the AFD started. CTJF83 chat 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

130s BC[edit]

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

There is no content on this page, It has links, it has categories, it has section headers. When I first came across the article I put a {{unref}} then realized there was not a single word requiring a reference so I put a {{prod}}, which was removed along with the {{unref}}. It fails Wikipedia:CSD#Articles A3, the fact that there is no references is not relivent. Fails Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information an article that is simply a place holder qualifies as part of an indiscriminate collection of information. Would also seem to fail WP:N as nothing notable enough to record is in this place holder. Prior to posting this AFD, I checked the relevant linked articles and there is no referenced content to bring in to the article. Jeepday (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content (unreferenced) has been added to the article so A3 no longer applies. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Considering that there are articles about the years in this decade (139 BC through 130 BC) that do include information about births, deaths, and events in those years, it would seem more appropriate to either put the most significant items from those years into the decade article, or at least leave the decade article in place in hopes that someone will eventually get around to putting such items into it. There is no deadline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G2 or A3, take your pick. Ivanvector (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be content, so A3 doesn't apply. And it'd be very difficult to make a G2 case there. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That content was unreferenced and removed a few minutes later by the same author that added it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , since it is so easily fixable. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if not fixed, it serves a useful navigation function. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's another good reason: it is a little counter-productive to break out one of a good continuous series, because tithe particular one happens not to have been worked on yet . DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now moot I added the appropriate content--easier than arguing. Would have been just as easy for the nom. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that content has been added. Placeholder articles should be deleted though. JBsupreme (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The nominator should be forced to improve at least 10 decade articles with 10 events each, or write a 100 times "I should not nomimate articles that obviously and trivially could be {{sofixit}}ed" on his user page. ¨¨ victor falk 03:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved many more then 100 articles, but I don't add content without references and I don't add unreferenced content to avoid deletion of an empty article.JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so serious; sorry you didn't get what I meant ¨¨ victor falk 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should like to second that: adding any unreferenced content purely to avoid deletion of a completely empty article is unconstructive. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry? On the contrary, it is strongly advised to try to wp:improve articles during AfDs, and it's OK if it's not perfect. ¨¨ victor falk 03:57, 30 January 2010 (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.