Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1807 in Chile

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 no consensus‎. As stated repeatedly, no Merge can occur when there is no existing article to Merge TO. Please do not participate in AFDs and suggest Merges or Redirects when there is no target article. You making the proposal doesn't not cause these articles to suddenly come into being. If you are not ready to create the target article yourself, please do not make a suggestion to Merge or Redirect to a nonexisting article.

Feel free to have a future Merge discussion once the target article(s) is actually created. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:37, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1807 in Chile[edit]

[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)

Article does not meet general notability guidelines, includes empty sections, doesn't cite any sources, and is only 693 bytes. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Chile. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 04:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not just merge all the "1800s in Chile" articles into one decade article? Are ten stubs really better than one semi-decent list where you may have to scroll once? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Merge. The information is worth having, but shouldn't be spread over ten articles. Athel cb (talk) 14:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article or a list, since it functions as a Category. I think that is the right navigation tool for this information. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 01:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Merge where? '1800s' is ambiguous as either the first decade of the 19th Century or, in almost all common usage, the entire century. How do we expect a reader to know we mean decades when everyone else means centuries? On a minor note, there are articles for every year. I assume the plan will be to consolidate all of them into decades. Is there a mechanism for that, or do we need 99 more AfDs? Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rellisting comment, I echo others, what is the specific, existing Merge target article you are proposing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe AirshipJungleman29's intention was to create a new page called 1800s in Chile to collate all of the entries from 1800-1809. They can feel free to correct me if wrong. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was my suggestion, yes. I'm not sure I'd call it my intention, since it was a throwaway comment, but now that I've looked through all of the hundred 18[xx] in Chile article, I can find nothing so good about any of them to overrule WP:PAGEDECIDE. As for confusion, "1800s in Chile (decade)" should solve that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A closer can Merge to an existing article but can not create one where none exist. It's not helpful to propose new articles unless you are willing to spend the time to create it. DIY. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm completely confused now. It sounds like those advocating Merge have no existing target article in mind so no actual Merge can occur. This discussion is becoming a trainwreck.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to think of a way to to accomplish this via AfD with a merge to 1800 in Chile and rename to 1800s in Chile, but considering all the unlisted pages that also need merging, it's just not the right forum for that outcome. @AirshipJungleman29: I recommend starting a merge discussion on Talk:1800 in Chile as soon as this closes for all ten "180X in Chile" pages, and pinging all the participants here to that discussion. —siro χ o 09:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Would someone mind pinging me when this closes? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above keep as a redirect, to 1800s in Chile. Questions? four OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, OLIfanofmrtennant, 1800s in Chile doesn't exist so no article can be Merged to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 1800 in Chile through 1809 in Chile to an 1800s in Chile article. The other nine merges can be WP:BOLD merges if this isn't the forum to find consensus for them. I'd also support merges into 1810s in Chile, 1800s in Argentina, and so on and so forth. As someone who has been working with articles like these for a while, the overwhelmingly stubby nature of these year articles is something I and the other WP:YEARS editors are painfully aware of. I and a few others are working to try to get something resembling encyclopedic coverage in these, but it's slow work, and I don't expect articles like 1807 in Chile will realistically get the attention they'd need to be their own articles. Merges like this are something that has been proposed without any real pushback (to my knowledge). If this is something we want to discuss more broadly, it can be added to the long list of discussions, arguments, and RfCs for sorting out this unloved corner of Wikipedia (there's a lot of required reading to catch up on all of them). After all, these exist not only for most years, but for most countries as well. Individual year in country articles can work for recent years (see 2021 in the United States or even 2021 in Botswana), but I don't know if there's a single example of a well-written 19th century year page. Ideally, they'd all look more like 2001, which I've been working on for a while, but that's the slow work I'm referring to. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of a series. If the other ten in the decade make sense, then keep all ten. Otherwise, merge to the decade. Do not use AfD for incomplete ideas to merge. There is no case for deletion, so speedy keep WP:Sk#1. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2023 (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.