Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Before Christ


 * 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 of the debate was redirect to Anno Domini. SushiGeek 02:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Before Christ
This article is basically a duplicate article/fork of Anno Domini. Most opinions as expressed on the talk page are in favour of a redirect, but there's a persistent opposition to this, so perhaps it's best to solicit comments here. &mdash; squell 17:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Anno Domini per nomination. Also, having a duplicate article like this might encourage POV-forking on what is a pretty delicate subject matter. &mdash; squell 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Anno Domini... we already have a fork of Anno Domini and Common Era. No need to add another.--Isotope23 18:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Anno Domini per nomination. No good reason to have separate article --JimWae 18:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect It seems to me that there must be a word or phrase than can encompass this whole discussion. Jonas Silk 19:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a bizarre use of process, but, really, I can see no better way to do it. Yeah, redirect. Lord Bob 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect DJ Clayworth 20:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * NO VOTE - this is a bunch of editors from the Anno Domini article attempting to sabotage a good and valid article, therefore, this vote is moot and should not be recognized. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this. If you are already assuming that everybody participating here will be in favour of redirection, then how is it a valid article? &mdash; squell 22:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect. Lambiam Talk 02:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge some useful content and redirect to Anno Domini. "Note: BC is no longer used as the term for a year before AD, but is now BCE (before christian era)"? Most people still use BC! Grand  master  ka  03:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * merge I have to agree with Grandmasterka. In its proper context, the use of BC is perfectly acceptable and continually used. Roodog2k 14:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the nomination isn't concerned with this. If there would be consensus that having a seperate article on this topic is useful, it would of course get polished up. &mdash; squell 15:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect, belatedly. dewet|&trade; 16:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge M o e   ε  18:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * merge and check disambu's --  max rspct   leave a message  22:24, 12 April 2006 (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.