Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010s
2010s but '''Delete''' the later ones.  Most of this stuff is trivial (such as anniversaries).  The fictional references are interesting, but I question whether they make the time frames notable:  I am much more likely to be interested in the fact that a certain Star Trek episode is placed in a given decade than that the decade is the one in which that episode is placed. As for the astromonical predictions:  Those are also nice, but IMO |Wikipedia is not an almanac (and to the extent that those events are notable this is a very inefficient way of presenting them).  Only the 2010s is comprehensive and composed mostly of notable material
— User:ems57fcva, 21:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NOT (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)