Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. Muslim history


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. Muslim history

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Invented topic; Islam is based on the prophecies of Muhammad, who stated he began receiving communications from God (via the archangel Gabriel) in the 7th century, 800 years later. This seems to be some sort of odd revisionist WP:POVFORK. Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It doesn't bother me that the subject at hand is 800 years before Muhammad (The Koran itself covers some), but it does seem to serve little purpose than to be a povfork that is unreferenced at this stage. There is little information in the article and nothing to potentially salvage from it in its current state. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We've suggested userfication or something but the article creator doesn't seem to want to engage. Nobody else can really work on it because it's not clear what the article is meant to be or what it's supposed to be about. No prejudice against creating an an article that has some referenced research on whatever it is that mainstream Muslim theology maintains occurred before Muhammed (if that is indeed what the article is supposed to be about - not clear), but this ain't it, and we can't just leave it hanging around in this state. Delete. Herostratus (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We should accomodate two kinds of articles about religions - factual historical articles that document the development of religions, and articles that describe their beliefs. A pre-Mohammed article about Islam would not fit with the former, but would fit with the latter. But this is really neither one nor the other - it's kind of documenting a part of Muslim belief, but it's also linked into a factual historical article. Clearly Islam accepts some OT and NT accounts (I don't know enough to know the extent), but this set of selected events seems unacceptably arbitrary. I think something that documents a timeline of Islamic beliefs would be good, showing that Muslims accept pre-Mohammed events as being part of Islam. But this article is a long way from being it, and in the described circumstances I think it's best deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete classic povfork -- Y not? 20:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as fork/ synthesis.--Yopie (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as hoax. POV is mildly putting it; it's plain WP:OR. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Coment. It's now been turned into a list of events in the 1st century BCE, with no apparent connection to Islam. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's now a completely different article from the article that was nominated for deletion... which is a little odd. It's one thing to add sources etc. to an article under AfD, but to completely rewrite it to something else? This presents rather a moving target... I hate to throw away all that work, but... the article would need to be renamed to something like just Timeline of 1st century B.C.E. history or something, but don't we probably already have an article like that? I note that it includes an event in Ireland for instance, so it's pretty broad... not sure what to make of this. Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that 1st century is pretty much the same as this article (but more complete, although also not referenced)... do we want two copies of the same thing? I would say no, and am not changing my Delete vote. Herostratus (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it to the article we're actually discussing here. An IP had blanked it as the dates were all unsourced, which was pre-empting what we are trying to decide here, and then added some valid 1st century events which we already have elsewhere and which were not related to Islam, so that was definitely not a valid version for this article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And he blanked it again, accusing me of vandalism. This is the same editor who has been blanking it right from the start and refuses to wait for discussion to achieve a consensus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I already nominated it for deletion before but wasn't bothered to go through the whole unautomated process Pass a Method   talk  10:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, a nonsense "article" with no sources and no explanation as to even what it means.  Corvus cornix  talk  03:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:56, 6 April 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.