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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2305[edit]

2305 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:TWODABS. The primary topic should be the year in the 24th century, so 2305 should redirect to there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^{It will rain}  08:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I looked for further entries and added 2305 BC. I can't see that 2305 AD (a year far in the future with no significance) is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the year 2305 BC, a year which has occurred and things happened in (although still with very few looking it up. Non-notable asteroid, which redirects elsewhere, is apartial match and belongs in see also. Boleyn (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years alerting them to this AfD. PamD 12:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - TWODABS is not failed as there are three possible targets. Mjroots (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - basis of nomination of WP:2DABS isn't valid, as there are 3 topics listed. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Redirect to 24th century and add hatnote there pointing to asteroid: looking at the "What links here" for 24th century and 24th century BC (you need to click on "hide links" to avoid all the ones from templates) it seems apparent that there is a redirect from every "23nn" to the century and from every "23nn BC" to the BC century. There are not 100 hatnotes at 24th century saying "23nn redirects here; for 23nn BC see 24th century BC". There are two hatnotes, to a novel and a film; a third hatnote, to the asteroid, is all that's needed for 2305. PamD 10:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Amended to "Redirect" for clarity: 10:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing apparently happened, or is booked to happen, in the future. 2305 King is just a big rock. We know that stuff happened in the other 2305, even if we're not sure what it was. Beats the others by a country mile and should get this redirect. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2016 (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.