Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew)


 * 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. There are so many different issues here, so many differening votes and courses of action to take. Some want the empty ones deleted, others want them all merged; it's too difficult to actually judge what the consensus is because there are too many differing opinions. Clearly there needs to be some policy discussion surrounding the general notability of these articles, but it would be reckless to act on a half-baked consensus to delete so many articles. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

30th century (Hebrew)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also consider:


 * Comment: I have closed the individual AfDs (Articles for deletion/31st century (Hebrew), Articles for deletion/32nd century (Hebrew), Articles for deletion/33rd century (Hebrew), Articles for deletion/34th century (Hebrew), Articles for deletion/35th century (Hebrew), Articles for deletion/36th century (Hebrew), Articles for deletion/38th century (Hebrew), and Articles for deletion/39th century (Hebrew)) and have centralized them to this debate so that these articles can be discussed together. Cunard (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have notified all the participants of Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom and the previous discussion. The discussion pertains all of the XXth century (Hebrew) articles, so please also consider:

--RDBury (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into one article. I see the beginings of a great article here, no need to cut it off at the knees. Ikip (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note, I would be willing to merge these article, a huge task in and of itself. Another option is that we merge all the articles to a sub page on the creator, (WP:userfication) deleting all existence of these pages afterwards, including the redirects. Ikip (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussion I mentioned the possibility of doing an article along the lines of "Outline of Jewish history". But it seems like most of what would go in these articles would recapitulate events in the Bible and there is already a Timeline of the Bible article.--RDBury (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into one great article per Ikip. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  'Delete  Vote altered - see below-- As I commented on the 37th century CFD, I do not think that any one is seriously using this dating system. Jews who do not want to acknowledge the existence of Christ use CE and BCE for AD and BC. In any event, I am far from clear that this is other than a 2nd millenium AD construct. If it were, I would have expected to find soemthing other than regnal years in the Bible. However, I am not an expert here, and may need to be corrected. I would not oppose having a single article' on the Hebrew dating system, probably with a table for converting Hebrew dates to those of other systems, but I must oppose any category system based upon Hebrew centuries.  I fear that we also need to delete a lot of articles on Hebrew years, having just sampled one that consisted of a comaparative calendar according to the Hebrew and standard (Gregorian) dating systems.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course we have an article on the Hebrew year system. We also have articles for each Hebrew year from 5600 (1839/1840 CE) on. I just checked by hitting random article in the Hebrew Wikipedia; they use the Gregorian system there. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with the suggestion of mass deletion of the entire series, should I place AfD templates on those, directing here? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, I thought the previous discussion was supposed to be about all of the articles but here we are again.--RDBury (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. LOL. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 03:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all. These articles don't say anything, but if they began to list events that happened by Herbew dates, that would be duplicative of the listings by Gregorian calendar. Abductive  (reasoning) 19:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all I originally queried one of the similarly named articles. My reasoning is basically that this would be effectively a duplication of the current Gregorian calendar pages. I originally left a message at WikiProject Judaism (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23), but apart from the page's creator, no one else commented. I feel that any content that would be placed on these pages which do not exist in the Gregorian Calendar pages should be incorporated (e.g. in the 1st century (Hebrew), it mentions September 25, 3760 BC — First day of the Hebrew calendar (the creation) - yet this is not included in the September 25 article. I feel they should be put into the main calendar pages, with the relevant Anno Mundi date appended. Also, most of these articles have no, or little, content - and a lot of the events present aren't connected with Judaism, but with the Near East (e.g. 2nd century (Hebrew)). A look through the 58 articles currently existing show a total of 22 events (excluding non-Judaism-connected ones), 51 births/deaths. (incidently, I ignore Pharoah Djoser in 12th century, as his article shows no Judiac connection, but including Christianity beginning in 38thC) - 29 articles have no content at all (6thC, 22nd-36thC, 41st-53rdC) --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all articles with content and delete the empty ones (i.e., turn empty blue links into redlinks). To the extent that there is content, I don't see any reason that an article should be deleted.  Articles like 1st century in Roman Britain are an acceptable project because they encourage research on a particular aspect of a world history.  I suppose that these could be renamed "3rd century BCE in Jewish history" or "16th century in Judaism", but does it really matter if the one-hundred year period described is from 200-299 AD or 240-339 AD?  I understand the argument that, for the sake of consistency, we should go by the "common era"  (what the hell, I call it BC and AD and don't worry about PC).  One of the great things about Wikipedia, however, is that we don't worry about consistency (such as in a method of citing an article) as much as we do about gathering accurate information and encouraging others to do so as well.  Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be a primary source (though it's generally the first place people will check to get the most uptodate info), and it isn't very strict on a uniform system.  My view is that if someone is making a project out of the history of the Jewish people, or if someone is consulting that project because they have an interest in that subject, the format, including name, is the least of my worries.  It could be 30th century Hebrew or "10th century BC in Jewish history", see also "9th century BC".  I'd leave it to the persons working on the article. Mandsford (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a whole lot of content on most of the articles so I think putting/merging it as a single article or articles per group of 10 centuries would do the trick. Hopefully more events would be added. Maybe each century article could be left as a redirect if necessary - 37th century would be restored and put as a redirect as well with the history contributions restored as well. I just don't see all the centuries kept individually unless many events are added which can be quite a research task. JForget  19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * True, some of the articles have content, but it all exists elsewhere where people are more likely to find it. As I said earlier, there might be some value is some kind of summary article, but this isn't the way to organize it.--RDBury (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep all articles with content and delete the empty ones. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the ones with content, and redirect the rest to whatever. May want some of this later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * keep and add content for the ones possible. There will certainly be something for everything since at least the 9th century BCE- it should be pretty easier to do. Even for the earlier ones, there were more events in each of them in the OT than are listed here. its just an incomplete group of articles and the solution is to complete it.    DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Technical issue -- Many of the articles do not bear an AFD tag and so cannot be dealt with in this AFD process. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply -- None of the articles above about 20th century, have any substantive content. Those that do merely list dates of birth and death of patriarchs and ante-diluvians, gving the authority as "according to Vulgate", i.e. the Latin Bible.  If we need to have some dating of this kind at all, I would suggest that we use something like Bishop Ussher's compilation, despite its deviation from what Jewish dating, but I see little merit in the use of any of this for persons from David onwards, for whom there is robust historical dating, as a result of biblical regnal dates being correlated with the conclusions of secular history.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've raised the question of how to get these articles rolled into a single AfD at the help desk but have gotten no response. We've already had this debate with the 37th century article and to have it a third time would be silly. I really don't see the point of continuing with this AfD if it's only going to deal with some of the articles.--RDBury (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I asked above - should I put AfD notices on all of the other articles? I will do so tomorrow if others agree that this would be appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me, but I have no idea if it's considered proper etiquette or whether it will be binding at this stage or even if this kind of thing has come up before.--RDBury (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant to reply to this earlier, and forgot! Afd says that you nominate the first one, and then add a note on the AfD discussion page (i.e. here) to list the others to be considered. - It should be done at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion, which in this case was done - so, no you don't need to put an AfD notice on the other pages, only on the first one. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I raised this because the issue of untagged articles comes up periodically on CFD. No doubt the closing Admin will note this discussion, and act accordingly, relisting any items he (or she) considers inadequately disucssed.  It sounds as if I was wrong anyway.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The rest can always be nominated when this AfD is closed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all items above about 25th century. Keep lower numbered ones (up to the period of Jacob and Joseph).  Delete all refernece to decade in the template. -- For period of the Biblical patriarchs and before, we are not really talking about "Hebrew" dating but Biblical dating from its (apparent) creation date in 4004 BC (according to Bishop Ussher), or perhaps a slightly different one according to Jewish scholars: perhaps 1st to (about) 25th centuries should be renamed as 10th century (Bible) etc.  Even if different scholars may disagree as to the Biblical date of creation in terms of BC (or BCE), they will probably agree on dates from creation, as they will all be using Genesis.  The retained articles need to be much more focused on Biblical history (possibly Hebrew history - not "Jewish history", as in the present 21st century article and above).  All references to the Vulgate, Septuagint, Masoretic text, etc should be deleted, since I do not think they disagree substantially.  The source in all cases will be some one's working based on the Bible, so that the Bible is the ultimate source.  Note: I am a Christian, and believe that God created the world, but do not accept that it was in 4004 BC (or any similar date).  I take the view that I do not understand the significance of the dates in the early chapters of Genesis, but I also accept that some people take them literally, so that articles based on them are potentially encyclopaedic.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all, I can't see there's any useful content here that's not dealt with in the regular chronological articles. We need to stick to one date system. Lampman (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are other wikis on the web, and anyone who thinks that Hebrew dating is important is welcome to build as many articles or lists or whatever as they want elsewhere, linking to Wikipedia articles.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 17:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Am unsure, but like the idea of this sort of categorization. What I was thinking of was that there were numerous Hebrew-year articles out there, so I wanted a better way of organizing them - the main point of the century articles to begin with. Of course, Hebrew year articles need not be produced, just as Hebrew century articles need not be produced. However, merging Hebrew century articles into one great chronology is a good idea, as are the following: listing Hebrew years covered by Gregorian centuries in Gregorian century articles, putting Hebrew century articles on another wiki, merging into Hebrew millennium articles, etc. The main reason why I dealt with events in the ancient Near East in general at all was because the Hebrew calender has several centuries prior to the emergence of Judaism itself, even though the calendar was apparently invented several centuries after Judaism emerged. (In other words, the dates are sometimes retroactive, just as Dionysius Exiguus used retroactive dates of events more than 500 centuries before his time for his own calendar.) So, if you're going to do something with Hebrew centuries, why not do the same with Hebrew years? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the best idea is to put equivalent dates in other calendars in Gregorian century, decade, etc. articles, so people know what you're talking about in those calendars. Would anyone agree? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, some of the editors appear to prefer keeping and adding material to the Hebrew century articles, which is also cool. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 03:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The 1st century article discusses the Julian calendar century in terms of cultures that do not share that calendar (Han dynasty, Buddhism reaches China, etc). This is suitable for speaking of a period of time, throughout the world. The only question is, and I offer no opinion either way, is the Hebrew calendar a notable distinction from the Julian? I suggest (at the risk of adding details to the AfD that more properly belong on Talk pages) that if the answer is yes, that it is also suitable that the Hebrew articles keep a summary of the events detailed in the Julian, and prominent links to the Julian, and as much of a Hebrew perspective (details that would be undue weight in Julian) as possible. 1st century (Hebrew) and other of the existing articles do this already, but I suspect there is much more information that can be added. Anarchangel (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all No disrespect intended, but if its for historical value it should be listed under a commonly accepted date, and if it is for information on Judaism specifically it should go into a more appropriate article. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As mentioned above, there are numerous Hebrew year articles as well, for example 5606 (Hebrew year). These seem to have about the same issues as the articles in the current discussion and perhaps they should be the subject of another AfD review, but after this one has run it's course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.