Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/115 AH

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

115 AH

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

This article contains essentially no useful information, and is one of a series of such that (for the most part) appear to have been generated for no useful purpose other than to provide a calendar year conversion and a set of section headers. it has been in existance since 2006 but has had no useful additions. I attempted to PROD it, but the PROD was removed by an anonymous editor with the statement, "rm PROD - this might better go through AfD instead". In checking similar articles for PRODs, I find those were de-PROD'd with the suggestion to take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years, which I did here.

This may fall into speedy delete under criteria A1 A3, but I'm following the de-PROD recommendation for this page to gather a broader consensus before attempting a speedy delete of the others. RJH (talk) 18:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate. I think the Islamic years ought to be disambiguation pages, with one line of text that explains they mean periods within the Islamic calendar, and then lead to the corresponding years CE, in this case presumably 733 or 734. I don't think it's a good idea to delete them entirely because someone who reads "Event X took place in 115 AH" might well want to look up what "115 AH" means in an encyclopaedia; Wikipedia should give them a bit more help than just a redlink.—S Marshall T/C 18:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you can create a disambiguation page consisting of a single item.—RJH (talk)
  - No, you'd need several. In this case, three: 733, 734 and a mention of Islamic calendar.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay, well there are already red links for the decades and existing pages for each of the centuries. I'm not clear how adding another multi-year page (or pages) would be of benefit.—RJH (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have, as yet, nothing to say about the substantive issue of keeping or deleting, must must point out that this is about as far as you can get from being a candidate for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A1, as the context is crystal-clear. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it should have said A3, but that may also be iffy since it contains a single meaningful sentence. Sorry.—RJH (talk) 23:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 20:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment another year article has since also been nominated for deletion. 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to 773 Common Era year. This is about the same year and I can not think of anything that would fit here can not be placed there. In the CE article 115 AH should be mentioned however... L.tak (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (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.