Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/660 in Japan

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 660. Views are split between deleting, keeping / improving and merging; this should be a suitable compromise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

660 in Japan

[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)

Page barely has any information, just who the monarch was and a single birth, only country to have one of these pages for 660. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this seems like it is destined to be a perma-stub. Wm335td (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added four more events to the year, something the nom could have done. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also added another birth. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And another event. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -perfectly good stub, a type of which there is a consensus to have. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, nominator has not given any valid reasons for deletion, appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, should have been discussed on the talkpage, anyway improvements made show that it is a wikinotable year in Japan.Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question? Why not have this at 660? Do we need each nation to have their own separate short article? Dream Focus 04:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: merge (without leaving redirect) to 7th century in Japan. At such a distant date, it is rare for a national article on a single year to be warranted. The same applies to the two other annual article 684 and 646. They at least have the merit of one exactly dated event. This one has none at all. Converting it to 660s in Japan might conceivably be feasible, but even so it is unlikely to get beyond a terse stub. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect/delete to 660 or Asuka period. No reason that Year articles should automatically be kept because something happened then, we don't need 2000 years * 150 countries = 300,000 of these articles or whatever. Content can be preserved in the global article for that year or in the regional article for a longer time period. Reywas92^Talk 23:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 660, have struck out my above "keep", as 660 article is short enough to easily accommodate all of the info about Japan (as it presently does for other regions/countries), agree with above editors that there is really no need to have a separate "660 in Japan" article. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2019 (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.