Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/20th-century events

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. This is heavily a discussion as to whether it's a valid split/fork, with principal arguments focusing on aspects such as the degree of duplication, uniqueness (such as chronological order), detail and so on.

In any case, there was a strong consensus for retention.

As numerous individuals had their Keep grounds either wanting, or necessitating, a rename over the current redirect "History of the 20th century", I'll re-name to that. However, it wasn't unanimous, and so if anyone wants to start an actual discussion at Talk:History of the 20th century then that will of course be perfectly valid.

In line with this, please don't re-name a live AfD and especially when the majority of editors before have specified a different preferred name. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

20th-century events

[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)

Redundant to Timeline of the 20th century. Interstellarity (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also redundant to 20th century. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covers the history, whereas 20th century does not (and is not chronological). Timeline of the 20th century is just a timeline. Already contains good content that would not otherwise have a home. Some overlap is ok; there seems to be a reasonable delineation already. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 03:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hopelessly broad. Packing every significant event of an entire century into one article is a silly proposition. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It only seems to cover politics and war so far, and it's still vastly inadequate. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as History of the 20th century. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Biased by the fact that I contributed to the article back in the day, but I don't really see how this is redundant. The "timeline" article is just a list of dates and short sentences that offer no context. This article is far from being perfect, but a more narrative article detailing the history of the 20th century is needed. PraiseVivec (talk) 11:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd be interested to know why this particular century has its own page compared to 21st-century events, 19th-century events, and 18th-century events. Interstellarity (talk) 17:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We could always restructure the 20th century article so that it includes events. Interstellarity (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though a better title is needed – perhaps History of the 20th century which is currently a redirect. The article has enormous potential and the encyclopaedia should have histories by century (and, yes, there should be histories of earlier centuries too). If the article should become too large, it can be split. If anything is to be deleted, it should be Timeline of the 20th century which is hopelessly inadequate. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to History of the 20th century. There's plenty of precedent that a "History," "Timeline," and main article can exist for the same subject, for example, Philippines, History of the Philippines, and Timeline of Philippine history. This is a classic case of WP:SPINOFF where the main article (20th century) acts as a "summary style" meta article that has several sub articles that go into greater detail. All these articles serve different functions in the project and so should be kept, although I do support a rename to keep it consistent with the naming convention of similar articles. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Qwaiiplayer. It's very important article. -GorgonaJS (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep renamed to History of the 20th century. This is far from an ideal article, but it provides coverage of the main international events of the period. It is not a timeline, which would normally be a list article. 20th century is a broader article with a focus on other matters than the main political events. This is not a mere POV fork. It probably deserves to be designated as a "main" article for the other two. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwaiiplayer, Peterkingiron, and No Great Shaker: I am fine with a rename since the current title is far from ideal. I would like to know your thoughts on doing a similar article for every century. Example: History of the 18th century, History of the 19th century, and History of the 21st century. I want to know what you guys think since this seems to be the only century with this type of article. Interstellarity (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: I think the creation of those articles would be a positive addition to the encyclopedia. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 03:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to Key events of 20th century. Along with "Timeline", this page could be a useful supplement to page History of the 20th century. No renaming to "History of the 20th century" please. Of course these two pages might be merged, but I think keeping them separately would better serve the purpose. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2021 (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.