Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of 6th-century 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of 6th-century Muslim history

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is anachronistic, Muslim history didn't start any earlier than around 610 (well in the 7th century). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - specious rationale. The timeline gives the births of various ancestors etc of Muhammad, and the events of the first 30 years of his life. Perfectly reasonable. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not history of Muhammad but Muslim history. Muhammad hasn't done anything Islam-related in the first 30 years of his life. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. Any work of "Muslim history" covering the whole period will begin with the late 6th century. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As noted by the nominator, this is a history of Muhammad before he began preaching Submission.  I quote the History of Islam article: first the intro, and then its "Islamic origins" section:"Despite concerns about reliability of early sources, most historians believe that Islam originated in Mecca and Medina at the start of the 7th century.""According to tradition, the Islamic prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca around the year 570. His family belonged to the Quraysh. When he was about forty years old, he began receiving what Muslims consider to be divine revelations delivered through the angel Gabriel, which would later form the Quran, enjoining him to proclaim a strict monotheistic faith, warn his compatriots of the impending Judgement Day, and castigate social injustices of his city."Works of Muslim history do not begin with the late sixth century except to provide background information: if you're writing from the Muslim point of view, you'll begin your account of Muslim history at Creation, and if you're not, you'll begin your account of Muslim history (as opposed to background information) in the early seventh century.  There's no point in moving this content to the Muhammad article, since it's just a few bullets of information that's already much better expressed in his biography.  Nyttend (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fiddle, faddle! I should have said "History of Islam", but I forgot how many pedants are around. As you recognize it is necessary to admit twice, any bla bla work will include the 6th century, precisely to give background information. In the same way, the Timeline of World War I begins before the actual war, as any reader would expect. Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if that's the course you want to take, I'll say delete as basically redundant to Muhammad in Mecca without being a good redirect there. Once again, none of these items are specifically Islamic, and we already have the background information elsewhere.  Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We always have the information in "Timelines" elsewhere, and so we should. But many people like the format and use them.  If you feel like that, try nominating Timeline of 7th-century Muslim history and see how that goes.  Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - This is a subpage of Timeline of Islamic history created by the separating of that page by century. It was a reasonable thing to do then (2004) and still looks reasonable to me. There seems also to be a content dispute regarding the inclusion of events before the birth of Muhammad or before the start of his preaching. If this article is not deleted, that dispute could be continued on the talk page, but my opinion is that these events could be included. Smmurphy(Talk) 02:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as subpage of all other timelines in other centuries, this is the only one nominated for deletion. Furthermore I don't see any real reason to delete it (as well as keep the others). It just needs a bit more work. Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The whole thing is an oxymoron. It might be renamed to Timeline of life of Mohammed, but I expect that we have something better on that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep (or delete the whole timeline). The only reason its not part of Timeline of Islamic history is that the long article was split in small pieces because people don't like hugh articles. (btw. it looks like the none of them have any sources) Christian75 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades Godric 04:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - If the timeline used the Arabic calendar, having a single page for events in years BH would not be controversial. I see no reason to delete this article simply because the time divisions used are not ideal. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. There is something rather off about deciding the validity of an article about the history of Islam based solely on how it fits with a calendar based on the birth of Jesus Christ! Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The nomination is completely unrelated to calendars, I really don't understand where this comes from. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I'll explain. The title "Timeline of 6th-century Muslim history" uses the usual calendar, based on Christianity. If the whole timeline set used the Islamic calendar, this would be something like "Timeline of pre-Hegira Muslim history", to which the same objections could not be made. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it. The nomination is to delete an Islam article when Islam didn't exist yet. That applies in any calendar setting. There isn't any 1st-century BC Christianity either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There could be if the Christian calendar started (say) with the baptism or death of Jesus rather than his birth. But that's not really the point. If you don't get it you don't get it I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Prehistory is history. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's only because the term "prehistory" emerged in the meaning of history before written sources were available. We don't have a problem like that in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:12, 7 May 2017 (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.