Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in Singapore

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. Sourcing is a problem for sure, and there is a stark difference between many of these articles, both in sheer content (sourced or otherwise) and quantity/quality of sources. Consensus is that these are notable topics, and that lack of sourcing is indicative of lack of sourcing, not lack of sources. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in Singapore[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)

This article, and the following 20+ articles, seem to be simply collections of news events with little long-standing notability, which violates WP:NOTNEWS. Many are not even sourced and have not been for years. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've only included up to 1990 since those are the only articles I've looked through so far. The full list is at List of years in Singapore, which links to years well into the 1950s. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. R22-3877 (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These are part of the series of Category:2018 by country articles, detailing notable events that happen in each country. Issues about sourcing are not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. And I'm against deleting just one of the "year in xyz". We should delete all of them or none of them... Christian75 (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : WP:NOTNEWS doing battle with WP:CONSENSUS. I'm not touching this; not with a light-year pole. I had my monthly share of consensus-against-policy handbags. -The Gnome (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought you were braver than I to touch that one. Nosebagbear (talk)

Plots of movies; years in places; and lists of thingamajigs. They're here on Wikipedia so that some of us who're dying to excrete their precious very own majestic personal work can legitimately do so.

-The Gnome (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Given your (re)-triggering of the school dispute I think you might just be a glutton for punishment. Nosebagbear ;)

Being a Wikipedian involved in community interaction is being a glutton for punishment I recently learned fist hand. -The Gnome (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you two, get a room!..

Delete per WP:TNT; these articles are almost entirely unsourced and have no clear inclusion criteria. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Unsourced content can be deleted. Jane Dawson (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Unsourced content can be sourced or deleted. ~ Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2009, 2010, 2012 and keep the rest. These are the ones that are entirely unreferenced. Removing all unsourced content from these articles would lead to Wikipedia:Page blanking. The guideline recommends deletion in such cases. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But we should only be deleting if it's impossible to source, which seems unlikely. If the pages with any references can stay, then logically they all should stay since no doubt there are refs. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed" (WP:CHALLENGE), not just material that is patently unverifiable. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but it isn't usually an AfD approach - we should only delete when we can't preserve, and if blank pages due to no supported points is the sole reason to delete the pages then that isn't much of an issue as it can be repaired so easily. Better to determine whether any other del reason warrants their removal and only later consider that approach. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's so easy, WP:SOFIXIT? That some of these articles are entirely unsourced was part of the nominator's rationale. Hence, I think it's safe to assume that the unreferenced content is "challenged or likely to be challenged", i.e. needs to be sourced or needs to go by deletion. But it wasn't the only reason given in the nomination or agreed by others here. WP:NOTNEWS was also given, and I agree that we should determine if it applies. I don't have an opinion on that, however. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned articles have been sourced for the more notable events (done 1 reference per article for speed). -Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Category:Years of the 20th century by country. If you want to suggest wiping all of that, then you need to discuss it at the proper place, not delete just one nation. Dream Focus 06:16, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and make a better attempt to populate. Deb (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why single out Singapore? Category:2018 by country has 244 subcategories and 153 entries. Narky Blert (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These look super useful after a glance. ₪RicknAsia₪ 06:55, 21 June 2018 (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.