Talk:List of years in Bulgaria

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

There is no consensus to make any changes to the article. Two editors suggested deleting the article for having mostly red links. That can be pursued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.
Cunard (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should these "List of years in xxxx" articles go all the way back to the 1600s, even though it's all just redlinks? An anonymous IP has been going round loads of these articles, removing everything before about 1900, and I honestly don't know whether or not to revert them. RfC relisted by Cunard (talk) at 23:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC). Thegreatluigi (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

No This article should be deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2018 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)Reply
Yes I don't think article should be deleted. If there is relevance of Bulgaria before 1900, or there is any potential then articles can be created otherwise there is nothing important in keeping red links. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
Yes (Summoned by bot) If I get time I get around to fillign out these lists. ~~IP doesn't have ot be reverted, though they are doing busy work~~. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 19:06, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@L3X1: You seem to misunderstand in the sense that the IP has been removing the links, not adding them. Just wanting to verify that doesn't change your main position. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 06:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've removed the anti-reversion part. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

No - per WP:REDLINK, it's been over 4 years since they've been red and over 98% are still red. I don't see over 350 articles being created any time soon, and tend to agree this article should be deleted. The links that are blue don't inspire much confidence either, 2000 in Bulgaria has been unsourced for 5 years and the other ones haven't been edited significantly either since being created. The IP was right in removing them and shouldn't have been reverted in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic