Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st century (Hebrew) (2nd nomination)

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. If anyone wants this, just ask me or make a request at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st century (Hebrew)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains little to no content, in order of "intro"—"Events"—"Births"—"Deaths" with no references or sources whatsoever. Merge proposal has not been acted upon for almost a year. Therefore I would like to request deletion and userfication of all content into the specified article: i.e. User:SomeUser/1st millennium (Hebrew).

For these reasons, I would also like to nominate

:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and userfy as nom. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Moves out into the future. A vast number of content forks waiting to happen. Appropriate content for Hebrew Wikipedia, perhaps, but not the English. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Valid article topics, but there's no content. No complaints about recreation with actual encyclopedic content. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I would point out that we're in the middle of 58th century (Hebrew), and there's very little written even in that article, let alone other articles that do nothing more than show the beginning and ending date on the Gregorian calendar of a particular century. We've had some very good articles, such as 14th century AH, that show events within the context of a non-Christian calendar, and 19th century, which gives some information on notable occurrences during a 100 year period on the Christian or Common Era calendar. I'd argue in favor of keeping the 58th century article, given that the years since 1940 CE have been the birth of the State of Israel (and of the Chosen People developing nuclear weapons), and since someone could write a very good article. Most of these serve no other purpose except as placeholders for pages that will never be looked at. Mandsford 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand you, could you clarify your position? At one point, you seem to be in favor of deleting 58th century (Hebrew) when you imply "even in that article, let alone..." but at another point you also seem to be in favor of keeping it when you explicity stated that "[you]'d argue in favor of keeping the 58th century article, given that..." :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 19:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I'll try to clarify it this way-- in their current state, I see no reason for any of these pages to be kept. If someone were to take an interest in improving any one of these articles (so far, no sign that that's going to happen), then in that case, I would say, hold off on erasing that particular page. Finally, if someone were going to try to improve a particular page, then 58th Century would be the logical candidate for improvement, since this is the 58th century now on the Hebrew Calendar. From my point of view, "keep" and "delete" aren't absolutes, and I'm not averse to changing my stance depending on subsequent developments. Sometimes, I'm persuaded by others that something shouldn't be kept; sometimes, an article gets a substantial rewrite and it's different than what was nominated and a delete turns to a keep. If someone wants to improve one of these articles, I'm not going to block that. On the other hand, if we get a bunch of responses to the effect of "Someone... not I... will fix this" then I don't want to encourage more complacency. Mandsford 13:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.