Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1500 in India

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 to Timeline of Indian history. Although no one proposed this I believe it meets the spirit of this discussion. If anyone wants to merge any of it or create the page 1500s in India I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 17:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1500 in India[edit]

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

Wasting space no scope for improvement Benedictdilton (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into something along the lines of 1500s in India. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my explanation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1502 in India. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to 1500s in India. This will need a headnote that it relates to the decade, not the century. There is not likely to be enough content for annual categories at such a remote period. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Consensus here appears to be "merge", but I want to point out that there are a dozen similar articles at AfD (that should have been bundled) with varying consensus. Bundling was specifically requested at the 1521 AfD. (AfDs: 1500, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521, 1522, 1523, 1524, 1525, 1526, 1526, 1527, 1528, ...) Not sure if an admin would be willing to combine the lot for the nom (or how that process would go) but no one has argued to consider these noms separately, nor to decide them separately. I recommend moving discussion to the first AfD (this AfD), 1500 in India, for the time being. czar · · 15:47, 30 May 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.