Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1970s in science and technology

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 snow keep. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1970s in science and technology

View log

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

Delete after merging useful content to the appropriate year in science article. There are only three in this series. They are going nowhere and can be covered elsewhere. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete and merge is impossible given licensing requirements. To do what you want to achieve, you'd have to redirect these to 1970s (or another target), and then add attribution in the respective year articles pointing back to the edit history of the redirect. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As subject matter for articles, these are all reasonable navigational aids and overviews for the more specific per-year articles. That the current text is inadequate is irrelevnt since deletion is not a valid cleanup method. Insofar as this series (including the missing decades) could be cleaned up by someone who cares enough to do so, there is no impending need to delete them before that happens. It would be best to leave a work in progress like this around, and there is no impending need to delete these articles. --Jayron32 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that deletion is not permanent. How about putting them in project namespace? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep Justin Bieber Twitter account gets its own article and an article about science and technology deemed unencyclopedic. Astounding!!! This could be summarised as a decade.. The article has massive potential!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all three. The decade articles should provide overviews of the year articles, and both the decade and year articles encourage readers to browse the encyclopedia. Ideally individual articles like Voyager 1 would link back to the year or decade. What else happened in 1977? In the 1970s? Yes, the text needs to be cleaned up and sources added. That will not be achieved by deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Yes, these articles are not in the best of condition. But it's important to have a big picture overview of overall historical trends and influences in these fields, which this type of article can provide. Perhaps then we should have a Twentieth century in science and technology article instead of the 1970s and 1990s articles? Regards, RJH (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 70s science and technology was very important, the moon buggy, last moon walk etc. These decades could easily be expanded! Jaguar (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep -- If it weren't that I'm getting too angry at the nom for this sort of disruption, I'd just do it. DGG ( talk ) 18:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Subject matter notability should be obvious. I would have simply closed per DGG but I haven't closed any AFDs before. It doesn't require an admin to see the obviousness of the result, so any regular editor so inclined should feel free to close this. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 18:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all three articles – per criteria #1 at the speedy keep page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep-

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I fail to see how the last three decades of technological advancement would not be considered notable.Smallman12q (talk) 11:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep – We obviously encourage redundancy in navigation, and this is a form of it. Just because it's not in good shape right now doesn't mean it's deleteable. AfD is not for cleanup. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avalanche keep – if these articles don't belong in an encyclopedia, I don't know what does. Obviously these articles need some work. The 70s article is written like an article while the 90s and 00s are much more like lists. Since there are already yearly lists, I think it would make sense to convert the 90s and 00s lists into articles that highlight the decade's achievements. Boghog (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2012 (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.