Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 in Australian literature
: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 2012 in literature. —Darkwind (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
=[[2012 in Australian literature]]=
:{{la|2012 in Australian literature}} – (
:({{Find sources|2012 in Australian literature}})
Only 2 entry throughout the year; better to get the entry merge in 2012 in literature Awards section. Ninney (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What about merge into (or create) 2010s in Australian literature instead? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Please stop discussing here separately, instead lets discuss jointly in similiar article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature- Ninney (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)- Merge: As per discussion result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature, the result was merge to 2011 in literature. Likewise, can we have similiar consensus on 2012 in Australian literature & 2013 in Australian literature? - Ninney (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to 2012 in literature, as per Ninney, modelled on 2011 in literature. No apparent good reason that recent literature review articles should be divided by nation. Yes, the YYYY in literature series needs work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Its been a month & we are still in discussion or this discussion might have been ignored. Why are we having such a brain storming discussion only for a couple of entries? Or is it related to the country Australia; If it would have been India, my very own country, I would still have marked the page for deletion / tried to update the article. Once a Wikipedian or also once a book reader, we are global citizen & not divided by any boundaries, no regional lock outs. I am a Bibliophile person, a book collector. I love reading books. I also enjoy reading the works of many Australian authors & that is how I reached this article. I cannot update the article since I am busy with some other Wikiprojects & hence I requested to merge those entries. Is it that tough to do so ?
The result of 2011 in literature as well as 2013 in literature was merge. So, humble request to close the discussion as early as possible. - Ninney (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- keep There will surely be more. The same goes for 2011 and 2013, but fortunately they can be unmerged when we need to. On a national level , there will always be good material for any 21st century year 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
: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.