Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of early modern history

: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. Yes, this is prime candidate for non-admin closing. Discussion about article titles belong in the discussion pages of articles, and are not valid reasons for deletion. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

=[[Timeline of early modern history]]=

:{{la|Timeline of early modern history}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Timeline of early modern history}})

In what way would the year 1500 be modern?? It barely postdates the time of Christopher Columbus, the oldest important event in U.S. history. How is this article title sensible?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. What does "U.S. history" have to do with it? Have you read the article Early modern history, Georgia guy? Deor (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
It's a very Euro-centric term. One of the main properties of history before 1492 is that the United States is ignored. Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
:A regrettable oversight. Should we request an article Pre-Columbian history of the United States? :) --Lambiam 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

strong, strong keep "early modern" is the standard term among academics in every field in the social sciences and humanities for the years between 1500 and 18xx, as a simple [https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=%22early+modern%22&btnG=Search+Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1 google books search] shows. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

:How is this a more logical title than Timeline of history 1500-1900?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

::comment good luck with your project. don't forget to [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=intitle%3A%22early+modern+*%22&limit=500&offset=0 change these too]. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Nominator has failed to specify a valid reason for deletion. "I do not understand the article title" is not one of them. --Lambiam 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
:I understand the article's title as meaning that 1500 is the beginning of modern history. Is this logical?? What's modern about 1500?? It's 511 years in the past! Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
::That happens to be the commonly accepted meaning of the term "modern history", whether you like it or not. "I don't think it is logical" is not a ground for deletion. --Lambiam 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Speedy keep. There is no argument for deletion here. What Georgia guy is proposing is a rename, not a delete, and lack of basic historical comprehension on the part of the nominator is not grounds for one nor for the other. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep Clearly the term "early modern history" is an Era that covers a range of periods just as "classical history" or "ancient history" also cover different periods. No point deleting this over nominees apparent confusion 511 years is modern compared to history termed "BC". Ma®©usBritish ^[^talk] 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
comment silly, silly people... it was before last thursday so it can't be modern! — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep - a waste of everybody's time. This is the term used by historians, even those in Georgia, to describe this period. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Keep. Not only do I agree with the post by Agricolae, but this Keep consensus is 100% unanimous, and although I have never ever done it until now, this is clearly an appropriate instance for Non-Admin Closure. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Upon review, what I meant to say was that if no objections are presented by tomorrow, 7 days after the discussion opened, it will then be grounds for Non-Admin Closure (which requires 7 days worth of debate in addition to a clear Keep decision). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2011 (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.