Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 in Afghanistan

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. postdlf (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2003 in Afghanistan[edit]

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

This article is a huge mass of uncited trivia. It has been merged from 12 articles by month. About a year ago, someone started to split the article back into 12 month articles, and stopped after doing 2. No one has tried to finish or revert. It seems that the article is not wanted and there is no point in going to the effort in sorting the article out when it would appear that the article is not really wanted. Op47 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NEGLECT: Just because no one has worked on the article in awhile does not mean it is not notable or unwanted; it simply means it has been neglected, and no one has bothered to try to improve it. TCMemoire (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since when did wikipedia become a diary? Page is too long and events listed aren't significant enough to keep. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As it stands at the moment, I would agree with the deletion, but this article can be improved. It should be rewritten to only include the most notable events (those that are well-known and/or had a lasting national or international impact). 2003 was a very important year in Afghanistan due to the war on terror, the Iraq War, and other unrest in the country, so deleting this article altogether would not be the best option. This article should only serve as an outline, not as a collection of every event that happened that year. Similar articles detailing national events by year, such as 2003 in Iraq, 2010 in Norway, and 2009 in the United States, could serve as guidelines for improving this article. Perhaps the less-notable events could be finished being split into new articles by month, as was mentioned by Op47. TCMemoire (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is called a chronicle which is a valid type of history keeping. The problem is lack of sources, which will become increasingly difficult to find as time goes by and sources drop offline (10 years is already very long). What will happen is eventually someone will begin deleting line by line for lack of sources, which is permissible under WP:V. It will then become a useless stub and then AfD a final salute. However since this is the first AfD I can't in good conscious recommend a delete. Assuming it closes Keep, one suggestion is try deleting a whole month as unsourced and see if anyone shows up to complain, and then push them to add sources using inline fact tags and contesting "I don't believe this event actually happened". That's the conventional weapons approach, better than the AfD nuclear weapon as an opening salvo. -- GreenC 08:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is a longstanding consensus at AfD to keep year-long (annual) chronicles, as long as they have at least two or three significant historical events listed therein. In a few cases, we have deleted future years' articles, because they were filled with speculation, only to re-create the article; see e.g., 2014 in Ireland. In other cases, for less momentous years, we have redirected or merged them into a single century; see e.g.,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/226 in Ireland. We have often deleted articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 NATO helicopter crash in Afghanistan, when a redirect or merge would have been cheap. There is 2012 in Afghanistan and a whole slew of related articles by year. If we were to delete this one, and yet keep the others, it would make no sense -- I can't think of a less momentous year for Afghanistan than 2003! To delete this would require a clear and convincing evidence or argument to change long-established consensus. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 16 December 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.