Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common Era
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Common Era
This page is neologism. The Anno Domini system is the original system and this 'Common Era' system is simply a neology. Similarly, the The Holiday page in which I created, which is a secular replacement for Christmas, was deleted with the reasoning labeled as 'neologism', therefore I am doing the same with the Common Era page. 24.222.79.90 05:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep This is a ridiculus nomination, it's a term used all over the world, and from the article you can clearly see that it's not a neologism (1716!). Should we nominate Ms. now aswell? I'm sorry that your article was deleted, but this is a clear violation of WP:POINT. gkhan 05:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy deletion From the Common Era article, "presumably VE was used instead of AD in order to avoid the Christian implications.". The preceding verifies that it was simply assumed, not verified, that "Vulgar Era" was used to avoid Christian implications. Therefore, how is it logical to delete the The Holiday article, a term in which was used for centuries as a common yet limited replacement for Christmas, but only recently has become an actual replacement permanently, in avoidance of Christian implications? Since both began long ago, however only became anti-Christian and wide-spread recently, it is only logical that either both be deleted, or both remain. 24.222.79.90
-
- Comment I read the article both of you highlighted, including this section: "If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion...make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.". This is exactly what I am doing, and I cannot see how it is logical that The Holiday article be deleted and this one not. Can someone defend why this one should be saved and the The Holiday one not? 24.222.79.90 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- What does it say in one of the headings in WP:POINT? "State your point, don't prove it experimentally". This is a great, accurate article on a very notable topic, no one would in his right mind delete it. Your article was, I presume an artcle on a term you yourself invented, which not only makes it a non-notable neologism, but also a breach of WP:NOR gkhan 05:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- I did not 'invent' the term 'the Holiday', it is an increasingly used substitution for the word Christmas in both American and Canadian media and government. To delete it for the reasons it was listed to have been deleted, would logically allow for the Common Era article to be removed as well, since it is a recently invented substitution for another term (aka- it doesn't actually EXIST)-- there is NO COMMON ERA.24.222.79.90 06:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- What does it say in one of the headings in WP:POINT? "State your point, don't prove it experimentally". This is a great, accurate article on a very notable topic, no one would in his right mind delete it. Your article was, I presume an artcle on a term you yourself invented, which not only makes it a non-notable neologism, but also a breach of WP:NOR gkhan 05:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I read the article both of you highlighted, including this section: "If someone creates an article on what you believe to be a silly topic, and the community disagrees with your assessment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion...make your case clearly on AfD, pointing to examples of articles that would be allowable under the rules the community is applying.". This is exactly what I am doing, and I cannot see how it is logical that The Holiday article be deleted and this one not. Can someone defend why this one should be saved and the The Holiday one not? 24.222.79.90 05:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy keep WP:POINT. Ian Cairns 06:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- WP:POINT. Common Era technically does not exist. 24.222.79.90 06:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep It is a neologism (only gaining much recognition in the last ten to twenty years say), but that of itself does not we shouldn't have an article on it. As can be seen, there's already a lot to be said, jguk 07:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Anons are not allowed to vote, why are we even letting them to put articles for VFD? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 07:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep The article is a Neologism but the term Common Era is indeed being taught especially at Universities throughout the world. Also, many non-Christian or Animist societies may object to the term AD instead of the more neutral CE. Wikipedia as a Global Encyclopedia should allow space for these users. While I'm not a great fan of the name 'Common Era,' and think it is just a confusing name for the existing Anno Domini dating system, I'm also a realist. --24.87.128.182 08:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Encyclopedic article about a commonly used phrase and concept. Jayjg (talk) 08:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Silly nomination and WP:POINT. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Silly term, non-encyclopedic and not commonly used in English or the Western World for the last 2000 years. Blatant anti-Christian and anti-historical term.Larsoner7 10:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Note: user's second edit [1]
- Keep. It's perfectly encyclopedic, no-one's forcing anyone to agree with any "sinister ideology" behind it ;) Frikle 09:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. For the reasons given above. I would also note that the contributions of this IP address consist almost entirely of trying to eradicate BCE and CE from articles and changing date styles in articles (which often triggers a revert battle). I would encourage this user, who probably isn't new, to find a more productive way to contribute. Jonathunder 14:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Commonly used. And clearly a useful article. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
