Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/320 AH


 * 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)

320 AH

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per 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)


 * 1 AH
 * 10 AH
 * 100 AH
 * 101 AH
 * 102 AH
 * 103 AH
 * 104 AH
 * 105 AH
 * 106 AH
 * 107 AH
 * 108 AH
 * 109 AH
 * 10th century AH
 * 110 AH
 * 111 AH
 * 112 AH
 * 113 AH
 * 114 AH
 * 115 AH
 * 116 AH
 * 117 AH
 * 1176 AH
 * 118 AH
 * 119 AH
 * 11th century AH
 * 120 AH
 * 121 AH
 * 122 AH
 * 1225 AH
 * 123 AH
 * 124 AH
 * 125 AH
 * 126 AH
 * 127 AH
 * 128 AH
 * 129 AH
 * 12th century AH
 * 130 AH
 * 131 AH
 * 132 AH
 * 133 AH
 * 134 AH
 * 135 AH
 * 136 AH
 * 137 AH
 * 139 AH
 * 13th century AH
 * 140 AH
 * 142 AH
 * 143 AH
 * 144 AH
 * 145 AH
 * 146 AH
 * 147 AH
 * 148 AH
 * 149 AH
 * 14th century AH
 * 150 AH
 * 151 AH
 * 152 AH
 * 153 AH
 * 154 AH
 * 155 AH
 * 156 AH
 * 157 AH
 * 158 AH
 * 159 AH
 * 15th century AH
 * 160 AH
 * 161 AH
 * 162 AH
 * 163 AH
 * 164 AH
 * 165 AH
 * 166 AH
 * 167 AH
 * 168 AH
 * 169 AH
 * 17 AH
 * 170 AH
 * 171 AH
 * 172 AH
 * 173 AH
 * 174 AH
 * 175 AH
 * 176 AH
 * 177 AH
 * 178 AH
 * 179 AH
 * 18 AH
 * 194 AH
 * 199 AH
 * 1st century AH
 * 1st century BH
 * 2 AH
 * 206 AH
 * 209 AH
 * 23 AH
 * 233 AH
 * 234 AH
 * 241 AH
 * 250 AH
 * 255 AH
 * 256 AH
 * 261 AH
 * 279 AH
 * 29 AH
 * 2nd century AH
 * 3 AH
 * 3 BH
 * 320 AH
 * 320s AH
 * 321 AH
 * 36 AH
 * 37 AH
 * 370 AH
 * 392 AH
 * 393 AH
 * 3rd century AH
 * 428 AH
 * 45 AH
 * 456 AH
 * 463 AH
 * 4th century AH
 * 5 AH
 * 508 AH
 * 51 AH
 * 52 AH
 * 53 AH
 * 54 AH
 * 55 AH
 * 56 AH
 * 57 AH
 * 58 AH
 * 59 AH
 * 590s AH
 * 597 AH
 * 5th century AH
 * 6 AH
 * 60 AH
 * 600 AH
 * 600s AH
 * 61 AH
 * 62 AH
 * 63 AH
 * 64 AH
 * 65 AH
 * 654 AH
 * 66 AH
 * 67 AH
 * 673 AH
 * 68 AH
 * 69 AH
 * 691 AH
 * 697 AH
 * 6th century AH
 * 7 AH
 * 70 AH
 * 71 AH
 * 72 AH
 * 73 AH
 * 74 AH
 * 742 AH
 * 748 AH
 * 75 AH
 * 751 AH
 * 76 AH
 * 77 AH
 * 78 AH
 * 79 AH
 * 7th century AH
 * 8 AH
 * 80 AH
 * 81 AH
 * 82 AH
 * 83 AH
 * 84 AH
 * 85 AH
 * 852 AH
 * 86 AH
 * 87 AH
 * 88 AH
 * 89 AH
 * 8th century AH
 * 9 AH
 * 90 AH
 * 91 AH
 * 92 AH
 * 93 AH
 * 94 AH
 * 95 AH
 * 96 AH
 * 97 AH
 * 98 AH
 * 99 AH
 * 9th century AH


 * 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)
 * 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.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Comment&mdash;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.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the following comment at 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)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete This isn't notable.V7-sport (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Whoa That is a massive list. I agree with the consensus to delete at 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.