Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th 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   delete. JForget 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: If editors went the rest of the centuries deleted, it would have to be nominated and using this AFD as a reference. -- JForget 00:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

37th century (Hebrew) (and other Hebrew century articles)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No discernible encyclopaedic content. Speedy declined. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would like all the NNth century (Hebrew) articles to be deleted. The intent seems to be to list articles important in Jewish history, but assuming that's a valid purpose, it doesn't make any more sense to divide them into articles based on the Jewish calendar for the audience of Wikipedia (which uses, predominately, the Gregorian calendar) than it does to write them in Hebrew (or Yiddish or Ladino) instead of English. I don't believe that the Hebrew calendar is used even within the world of Jewish scholarship for purposes of laying out chronology, so it also doesn't make any more sense to do it here than it would to similarly divide up articles about Armenian history or Japanese history. Finally, though there is nothing about the title of these articles that indicates that the content should be limited to Jewish history, so technically speaking this is nothing more than a redivision of the articles that already exists for centuries on the Gregorian calendar. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Idea. Why not list centuries of other calendars on Gregorian century articles? That seems a fair way of resolving this issue. OTOH there may be a use for Hebrew century articles. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 12:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would there be a use for Hebrew century articles, when no one dates events in Hebrew centuries? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There might be enthusiasts out there. And it's common to date things in some Israeli and Jewish contexts in Jewish time periods. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 16:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My first inclination is to say, let this placeholder turn back into a red-link until someone cares to write about it, at which time they will click on the red-link and actually have something to say. On the other hand, this particular time (roughly 160-61 BC) saw events, such as the Maccabees, and someone who wanted to do something could.  The overall purpose of an encyclopedia, however, is for reference.  You look up an article, and you expect to learn something about the subject.  The only reason that I can see that this pointless article was created is that someone prefers the color blue over r.ed.  Mandsford (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to be busy, which is why I haven't written much or attempted to write much. Maybe transfer to personal pagespace until I can figure out what to put in them? &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 12:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would be happy if all of these wre moved into user space until they have sufficient content to be notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- 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 regnsal years in the Bible.  However, I am not an expert here, and may need to be corrected.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. The way I look at it, any article that includes an alternative dating system also has to have the Christian/Common Era system that everyone uses in order to be understood.  I suppose that this article could be called "2nd Century BCE in Jewish history" and look at the range from 200BC-101BC, but I don't think it would add or take away from its usefulness in talking about a period of 100 years.  On the other hand, I think it would be unencyclopedic to have an article called "5750 (Hebrew) in Israel".  Narrow focus articles, like "1980 in Swedish football" are a way of retelling history from a particular perspective, generally started one editor dedicated to doing the research and then trying to present it in an interesting way for the readers.  Given that a person clicks on one of these because they want to know more about the subject, I think that using a traditional dating system adds to the experience.  I like the concept of presenting Jewish history in the format of a Jewish calendar. Mandsford (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Is seems like the existing content could just as easily go in Timeline of the Bible or Jewish history. Failing that, a similar Timeline of ... article could be created, or perhaps "Outline of Jewish history". Creating endless ways of reorganizing existing material is a waste of time.--RDBury (talk) 00:50, 9 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.