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 Delete all. Courcelles 22:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

320 AH[edit]

320 AH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1114 AH. Apparently, this whole scheme isn't speedy-deletable per that consensus, so I'm nominating the remaining articles here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

---

• Convert to navigation pages If people pop these into the search box, something should exist to direct them to the year articles that we have on Wikipedia. To that end I propose these all redirect to a navigation page containing a list of every year AH that exists, and it's start and end dates in AD, and every year AD for the period that AH exists, with start and end dates in AH. As AH is a lunar calendar, there is no simple math formula that can be used, the start and end dates shift relating AH to AD every single year. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect the AH pages with little or no added content to the corresponding century articles. The century articles can contain information by year in a list format, and they allow the reader to see more information in its historical context. Those years that have a significant level of detail can be forked back out into separate AH articles.—RJH (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem I see with this approach is that the content of these articles is restricted to Islamic events. This is no more appropriate than a list of centuries AD restricted to Christian events. Islamic events can be incorporated into the BCE/CE articles, just as non-Islamic events are. As they are written, this is a collection of 200+ articles of the form "List of Islamic-related events in the year X AH" and we just don't need that. (As evidence that we don't need it, most of the articles are blank except for section headers, amounting to empty lists.) YardsGreen (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment—As I see it, Islamic events are more closely interrelated to each other than non-Islamic events. Hence it is logical to group them together. Sorry but I'll have to disagree and my preference remains the same.—RJH (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the following comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1114 AH by Paul McDonald:

  There is no encyclopedic reason to have a separate page for every possible unit of measure conversion on a numeric scale. If there is a reason that this particular time period is of importance, then YES by all means (say, something of significance about the time period 1114 AH). But I don't see that in the article.

  JamesBWatson (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't notable.V7-sport (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa That is a massive list. I agree with the consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1114 AH, and that should extend to all of these articles as well. But with so many articles, I'd like to first make sure that any notable information in any of them is already duplicated at the corresponding Gregorian pages. YardsGreen (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review Of the ~200 articles listed, only 82 have any information at all. I am reviewing these one by one to see if the information is duplicated at the Gregorian page, but it is time-consuming. Much of the information is not duplicated, so I am duplicating the easiest info as I go. I am tracking my progress on my user page, but I will soon need to stop for the night. I believe the large amount of information in the AH articles that is not in the CE articles strengthens the case for deletion. As I read the articles, it feels like there are two separate Wikipedias here, one Islamic, the other not. That should not be the case. YardsGreen (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - if it is easy, I would have no objection to redirecting to the corresponding article for that time period. Racepacket (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately it isn't so easy, as they each overlap more than one year/century in the other calendar, so tree is no single suitable redirect target. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2011 (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.