Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1593 in music

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. WjBscribe 05:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1593 in music

Does not contain any valuable information. BlackBear 12:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that this is a project that hopes to cover all years in the last 500 or so (see:List of years in music). Unless there is some precedent here that you are trying to initiate, I believe it should remain. If this article is deleted, all "years in music" needing expansion would need to be deleted too. Leebo ^T/C 17:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This should be expanded, not deleted. It's a perfectly good and acceptable article, just not well written yet. Witty lama 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As mentioned by Leebo, this page is one of several hundred in a project, and any discussion about the deletion of this page should encompass them as well. It would not be right to delete one page and leave a hole in the project of which it is a part. - Geoffg 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone looked at the "articles" for the other years? They are lists of every album, artist birth and death date for each year. Of course, it's a very selective sample, since a comprehensive list would be astronomically large. It's pretty much an IMDB of music. While I appreciate that they put a lot of work into this, perhaps the editors of this project ought to be encouraged to transfer it out of Wikipedia. It should suffice for an encyclopedia to have a timeline of music history without having a page for every year. Djcastel 17:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that that's a possibility in the long run, but I think it's outside the scope of this article's discussion. Perhaps we could initiate a larger discussion with the project. Leebo ^T/C 17:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. There's no reason to delete this. Lack of content does not mean lack of notability. Allow it to expand over time. --Czj 17:07, 31 March 2007 (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.