Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1576 in Macau

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. The reason I'm not relisting is there isn't a chance of a consensus emerging for 42 articles with split, valid opinions. If folks think a merger into a decade is more useful to the reader, that's a conversation that can happen editorially. Star Mississippi 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1576 in Macau

[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)

Per the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1964 in Nagaland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1963 in Nagaland and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 in New York City, I nominate this article, along with 41 other articles for deletion.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There are no secondary reliable sources asserting the "[X year] in Macau" is a topic for scholarly research. The articles fail WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted. All of these lists are also stubs, with very little information presented.

The complete list of pages nominated for deletion are:

33ABGirl (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the other AfDs were for non-sovereign entities. I don't see why these lists would be considered indiscriminate, either, which is important, because list articles don't need to meet GNG, making this an invalidly formed deletion argument. These were the sorts of articles you'd see in actual print encyclopaedias if I remember correctly. The "no scholarly research" argument doesn't apply to lists. I think you could make a very comprehensive argument that we could have say 2000s in Macau instead of individual years based on the amount of information available in each article, and I would support that merge, but deleting would remove information that's completely validly in the encyclopaedia for years per Wikipedia:Timeline. SportingFlyer T·C 09:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Macau is a non-sovereign city-sized administrative division of China, so I think the examples provided (Nagaland - Administrative Division) & (New York City - City) is appropriate. 33ABGirl (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Wikipedia:Timeline, which seems to be primarily a style guide, without any specific standards on the notability required for the inclusion of a list. Likewise, the linked page Wikipedia:Timeline standards is also mostly a a style guide, without any standards on notability. 33ABGirl (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Macau has the highest level of autonomy possible for a Chinese administrative region and is frequently referred to in the same breath as other sovereign countries, similar to Hong Kong. WP:LISTN is the valid guideline here, and Wikipedia:Timeline simply demonstrates that the "year in country" is a valid purpose as a result of: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." This clearly fulfills a recognized informational purpose, even though I do admit it could be organised better. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hastily. There is simply no need for this breadth of detail on a small nation with no compelling need for subordinating historic information in this way, it's just unedited data. It's almost embarrassing when one comes across articles like this because it's unencyclopedic. What is the circumstance where a reader interested in Macau would need information laid out in this way? Macau has such a small impact on worldwide geopolitics at current that this doesnt meet notability guiidelines Cliffordben1994 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't like it. Got it. That has absolutely nothing to do with our inclusion standards. SportingFlyer T·C 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per points put forward by SportingFlyer. Suonii180 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment these have so little content combining down to say decades would make more sense KylieTastic (talk)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Guidelines
Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Specialized list articles says: "Timelines, using a standardized layout to present a chronological summary of a topic; examples include Timeline of architectural styles and Graphical timeline of the Big Bang. There is a special MediaWiki timeline syntax, but most Wikipedia timeline list articles do not presently use this recently introduced feature. For more information, see timeline."
Analysis of the guidelines and sources
The concept "timeline of Macau" has been discussed in independent reliable sources. Both Reuters and Macau Daily Times published articles with timelines of Macau. The information in these articles could be structured differently. SportingFlyer wrote, "I think you could make a very comprehensive argument that we could have say 2000s in Macau instead of individual years based on the amount of information available in each article". I think there is more than enough information in sources about Macau for there to be an article for each year in Macau. But as the individual year articles do not have much content yet, I think combining the articles is fine until enough information has been added to justify spinoffs. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, the articles should be kept with no prejudice against consolidation.
Sources
1. "Timeline-Macau's rise to world's leading gambling hub". Reuters. 2009-10-12. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The timeline lists events in 1999, 2002 (two), 2004, 2006 (two), 2007, 2008 (four), and 2009 (four).
2. "MSAR – A Timeline". Macau Daily Times. 2019-12-20. Archived from the original on 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-14.
  The timeline lists multiple events for the years 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant info to the respective Year in China articles. While Year in Macau would be valid WP:SIZESPLIT child articles if it became necessary, I don't believe that it is at this time. I'll note that there are a lot of these miscellaneous Year in X articles that need clean up, and I think that merging them like this is a good response in general. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:35, 15 June 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.