Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/15th century in United States 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 renamed already. Mango juice^talk 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

15th century in United States history[edit]

There was no United States before 1776, and naturally, nothing in history that would directly relate to the United States. I think renaming it 15th Century in North American history would be the way to go, but I wonder how much value such an article would have. Guess it depends on what the article's creator has in mind, but there needs to be a standard on the importance of events that go there, lest it become an indiscriminate list of information. Delete or Rename Ytny 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ - As per nom, if there is no U.S. prior to 1776 then there is no U.S. history prior to 1776. QED. The best that could happen to the current article is to rename it as "15th century in North American history" if it's not deleted. ju66l3r 19:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Rename - Nice post-edit based on my first comments, Ytny. :p So, like I was saying...a rename is probably the best for this article. :) ju66l3r 20:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Rename article as "15th century in North American history." Likewise for 14th century and any others that apply. Scorpiondollprincess 19:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Rename per ju6613r and Scorpiondollprincess. My understanding is that various territories and peoples have similar articles as part of history timelines. Smerdis of Tlön 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Rename. The article is far from quality but the information there can be used to as a pad towards something worthwhile. 205.157.110.11 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Agent 86 21:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. There's hardly any information in there; accurate, useful, or otherwise. DJCartwright 23:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Rename per the above. Ziggurat 23:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Note. There are also articles 14th century in United States history (also nominated for deletion) and 16th century in United States history, and the three articles should be dealt with in a consistent way. --Lambiam ^Talk 08:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment. As the author of the article proposed for deletion, I desire to defend it. I intend this article (and its predecessors and successors) as a time line of events that occurred within the present political boundaries of the United States of America or that profoundly influenced their later development. I chose to use the "in United States history" title even before the Declaration of Independence in the same sense that American history textbooks typically include chapters on Native Americans and colonists. This article titles continue backward into prehistory to provide continuity in both nomenclature and geographical coverage. North America typically includes the Aztec Empire and Mesoamerican civilizations but excludes Hawaii. I have added some extra events to the time line segment. Dufekin 03:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Defining events in time based on geopolitical boundaries of the location's future seems artificial. For example, is it relevant to determine whether Viking exploration reached the current coast of Maine (or any particular of the numerous different boundaries between Canada and Maine as it shifted through time) to define whether it would be relevant to this article or is the exploration of Newfoundland and other parts of Canada sufficient to remark on the development of the region? How far back do you go and still call it relevant to the history of the United States as opposed to someone/something else's history? I'm not certain that Native American events prior to arrival of Europeans would necessarily constitute some portion of "United States" history. Native American descendants may even find it insultory to deem the events as part of "what was to come" (which includes the systemic removal of these people from their lands). If in 10 years time, we were to aggressively annex the coastline between Alaska and Washington state, do we suddenly go all the way back in time to the first human history of that region of Canada and annex the history to go with the land? Just some thoughts on your approach to United States history. ju66l3r 18:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Rename per above. Czj 05:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename. Eluchil404 20:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep and rename. The issue seems to be the name. Very useful content; it serves as a central point to aggregate and display historical trends among the disparate inhabitants of the continent. Going to the articles for each tribe to glean this information takes time. Concur should be treated consistently with the 14th century article also nominated for deletion.--A. B. 22:09, 22 July 2006 (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.

anhducwiki7

Tuesday, November 23, 2021