Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/467 BC

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 speedy keep. — CharlotteWebb 21:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 467 BC

Nothing happened, blank article, nn-year. - FrancisTyers · 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nom. - FrancisTyers · 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not established as notable, an empty article. Recreate it when there is something significant to write about that year. --dcabrilo 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  ... Yes, we'll wait until something interesting happens in 467 BC. — Werdna talk criticism 12:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Calendar...marked. PJM 12:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It lists at least 3 events in ancient Greece or Roman Empire. The top one is notable - no doubt. The other events probably as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  All of it unreferenced. These events could easily have happened in 466 BC or 468 BC. - FrancisTyers · 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Then what about this event?. Apparently, User Skoglund deleted this event. Further research is needed here. Moreover, this webpage states that By 467 BC, all the Aegean was controlled by the Greek Confederacy under the heading of The Persians and Macedonians. In addition, Hiero I of Syracuse died in this year as well. In this webpage it is also stated that the Persians were defeated once more by Athenians at Termydon under the sub-heading of Chronology for Anatolia. The play of Aeschylus was also created in 467 BC. The reference is in this webpage. Thus it is technically incorrect to state that nothing happened. This article has the potential for expansion. A google search shows thousands of unique hits as well. This is clearly not a non-notable year. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  I'm not sure the google test is really appropriate for a year, a quick flick through the results shows mostly garbageish results. I would also suggest that rather than giving random information on the AfD, you actually add it to the article. I was very tempted to slap a {{sofixit}} in the place of this comment. — Werdna talk criticism 14:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  Well, thank you for your kind suggestion. I was actually waiting for the response of other users before attempting to improve the article. Moreover, at least I gave a brief overview in stating that notable events did happen during this year with some specific references. Anyway, this problem had been addressed and quite a few events are being stated in the article itself. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - I'm a little baffled as why this year has been singled out for deletion. It's not a blank article and contains at least as much info as other entries for the 5th century, if not more. Onebravemonkey | ^{blah blah blah} 13:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  The article was blank. [1] Some uncited information has since been added. - FrancisTyers · 13:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yep, i noticed that just after i posted...ack. Previous comment still stands, though. OBM | ^{blah blah blah} 13:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep contentful - years are inherently article worthy, whatever else floats your boat. WilyD 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  Well, could you support your statement with references to this project? In notability criteria, I can't seem to find any statements officially supporting this view. Please correct me if I am wrong. (Although at a personal point of view I agree with your statement totally, from an impartial point of view, I cannot agree with this view). --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• No, I can't since there's exactly zero relevent policies on notability and years - i.e. years don't need to be notable (Whisky Tango Foxtrot that means) to be included. They need to be encyclopaedic and verifiable which this is. WilyD 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It ain't blank now. --Ezeu 16:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm agreeing with WilyD, years in which human civilization existed are inherently notable, less we flood AfD with years that are poorly referenced.-- danntm ^T _C 17:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; it is a good idea to have articles for every year, especially for the last two thousand years. — Deckiller 20:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  Agreed; as long as the information is verifiable. The problem with this is that the further we go back in time, the harder it is for historians to verify historical information. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Gazpacho 20:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - it now has about as much content as the other years in its decade. Furthermore, we should have every year at least after 1000 BC because something notable happened in each one of them and if we don't have events listed, that means we need to do more work and find them, not that events didn't take place. Biruitorul 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per others. Arbusto 02:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. Maxamegalon2000 02:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WilyD. Every year since the birth of civilization is notable. --- The Bethling^(Talk) 03:41, 22 September 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.