Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1391 SH
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- 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. Fram (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 1391 SH (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)
A particular leap year in a particular calendar is not appropriate for a seperate encyclopedia article. The article for that calendar is sufficient. Listing all the people who died during this leap year is ridiculous. Fails WP:GNG -MJH (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – Similar articles 1390 SH and 1434 AH are also nomiated see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1390 SH & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1434 AH ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content to the appropriate Gregorian year articles, per WP:PRESERVE. This is my vote for all of the other nominations that have been made for Iranian years recently as well. MJH, can you combine all of these AFDs into one nomination so I don't have to vote individually for every one of them? --Jayron32 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as an aside MJH, your logic is faulty. The articles don't really fail WP:GNG because information on a given year is easily found in reliable sources. We have articles on Gregorian years, for example. I don't think we need redundant information on every calendar in the world, but that has nothing to do with Notability; this year will be plainly notable in Iranian sources, for example. So, please take care that your rationales when nominating for deletion. Slapping "Fails GNG" is meaningless and you need to indicate how it fails GNG (this doesn't, for example, as sources are likely plentiful), and if it isn't being requested to be deleted on notability grounds, you need a sound, reasonable, and detailed rationale anyways. Just something to think about. --Jayron32 01:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anglo-centric much? What makes Gregorian calendar years notable, but this Iranian calendar year not notable? I would like to entertain the idea of closing all of the discussions opened on these and having a community RfC on determining the notability of these calendars. Ryan Vesey 23:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it makes no sense to have redundant systems listing events that took place in the large number of extant calendar systems, and the Gregorian calendar is the most widely used calendar globally, especially in English speaking countries (our target audience). Some sort of redirect to a page listing conversions would also be acceptable. If there is any information not present elsewhere then that could be merged as well. Hut 8.5 20:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per the rationale given above and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1434 AH. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Hut's comments that this article is redundant. Mkdwtalk 03:28, 7 January 2013 (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.