Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1692 in Norway

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. Consensus seems clear enough. It has also been expanded. Geschichte (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1692 in Norway

[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)

I believe that this should be deleted as there is really no information on it. It has not been touched in years. Possibly maybe instead of deletion, an expert can assist? Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 18:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 18:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all of the 169x in Norway together into a single article due to lack of recorded events. See Talk:1526 in Ireland for a similar discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, why are we picking on Norway, and 1692? (i happen to like both ), this is not a cat, and WP:NOTPAPER, we should be expanding these "year in [country]" articles, not deleting/merging them. ps. it also meets WP:LISTPURP ie. info/navigation. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ps. i recently added to the "events" section, shows how relatively easy to expand it. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There is enough valid content in it to justify its existence. There are thousands of articles like this, and they always survive unless there are so few things in them that they have to be merged together in a list by decade. Dream Focus 11:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing wrong even if this article is going to remain a stub forever. desmay (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see no harm in annual articles by country. However the related category and siblings would be better for being merged inot on 1690s category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2020 (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.