Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature

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 merge to 2011 in literature (editorial decision to change merge target if there is a better one). Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in Australian literature[edit]

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

Only 1 single entry throughout the year; better to get the entry merge in 2011 in literature Awards section. Ninney (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about merge into (or create) 2010s in Australian literature instead? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me Refer List of years in Australian literature Which lists a link from 2003 to 2009 as good listing pages. Your suggestion of merging enteries from 2010 to 2019 as 2010s in Australian literature sounds feasible. I am OK with whatever is appropriate, Hoping for more opinions on the subject matter. Thanks User:Lugnuts - Ninney (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Routine housekeeping without prejudice against recreation. Abandoned start from June 2013. Carrite (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above . You can't create one entry articles and walk away expecting others to develop the article. LibStar (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that could be said about every single stub article created since WP began. Is that really a valid reason for deletion? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes because as it stands notability isn't established. Most old stubs on WP are inherently notable topics such as geographic places. LibStar (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- I would rather put it this way -
  A stub article with 1 Single statement, but if notable enough, may be worth Keeping
  A Listing page with less than 5-7 entries, though notable enough, not worth Keeping ... Try Merging it in some article. For, If its a List page, there is sure to be an article/topic about it or some section with similiar interest. - Ninney (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: comments on the suggestion to broaden the scope to 2010s in Australian literature would be welcome as well as more general keep/delete etc recommendations

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2014 (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.