Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of U2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of U2[edit]

Timeline of U2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A content fork off the main article U2 article in bullet-point form. This is made redundant by U2#History. ArticlesForRedemption 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What actual policy/guideline is this violating?
Page view statistics show that the article is getting on average above 100 hits per day. That show's significant enough readership - we are afterall building an encyclopedia for readers.
Also, in your very limited history on wikipedia, you only seem involved in afd's. Very strange indeed - IMO. --Merbabu (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which part relates to the afd? And more to the point, which policy are using for the creation of the afd in the first place - which I already asked. --Merbabu (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you please advise your position on the Indonesia examples I provided - there are some clear parallels between this and the U2 history-related pages.
  • Keep The history of U2 covers more than 30 years, and it is simply impossible to condense all of this history into an already crammed section of an overly large article. If this article was written as "History of U2" in prose would that still be eligible for nomination? It is the same content in different forms. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a pretty massive well references article. -OberRanks (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nomination is faulty, its just a question of organization, not inclusion, and nominator is currently blocked for being a suspected shit-stirrer.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nomination is by a blocked user - who hasnt had a checkuser passed yet - both of these qualities suggest the afd is faulty in process and should be closed as keep SatuSuro 09:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Coverage of a music group of this size and notability is enhanced by giving its timeline its own sub-article. If there was a lot less to say, then that wouldn't be the case. Valid content fork under WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, not POV fork. FT2 (Talk | email) 19:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliably sourced information in more detail than can be covered in the overall U2 article. Rlendog (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The timeline gives a lot of important facts and date, that may not fit too well into the U2#History article is also well sourced. Kiwinil (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - why tear down when we can build up? Lampman (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep and close, please.--Milowent (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_U2&oldid=1069104055"