Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argadorian Calendar


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Argadorian Calendar

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable (searching on "Argadorian" gives basically 1 google hit); perhaps a classic case of "something made up in school one day" Brianyoumans (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - original research, no confirmation from any independent source. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Obviously non-notable original research. It might be interesting, but it does not belong on WP. §FreeRangeFrog 16:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ¡Must not be deleted! ← Since other similar concepts and proposals like the ones named in the following are included in the Wikipedia, I think, this article deserves it as well. Since it describes mainly a specific proposal, which, however, is based on a variety of facts, most of which can be looked up elsewhere in the wikipedia, its main and proper content, the specific idea of the Argadorian Calendar, cannot be better and in a different way be presented than by a description of this proposal itself, that is, it must be or at least and mainly include a kind of (shortened) copy of the description of the Argadorian Calendar, which, of course, is quasi original.
 * Similar, concurring concepts, which are represented by an own article in the Wikipedia, are e.g.:
 * Common-Civil-Calendar-and-Time
 * Symmetry454
 * World Season Calendar
 * World Calendar
 * Pax Calendar
 * International Fixed Calendar
 * Positivist calendar
 * Holocene calendar
 * Since the memory space needed by this article is probably not so great, that it constitutes a problem, since it does e.g. not include any images, there should be no important reason, why it should not be included, since it does not hamper anything or anybody else.
 * Moreover, I use Wikipedia as a kind of principal reference, where one can get a kind of encyclopedic information and links to sources related to the topic of interest, about, hopefully, almost everything on earth and beyond. Unfortunately, the Wikipedia so far often does not satisfy these hopes, particularly as far as somewhat older things of minor practical relevance or historical significance are considered. However, since it are particularly these things, about which one usually cannot easily get information anywhere else, I consider the Wikipedia especially important for the provision of short, comprehensive information on these things and starting points to further related resources. The articles about phenomena of general interest are in this respect much less important, since they can in similar form be found in any printed encyclopedia ...
 * By the way, I find it very nasty, when articles are already marked for deletion a few minutes after one has begun to write them — and when they therefore cannot have been read already. Similarly, I also find it very inappropriate, when articles are marked for deletion, which may apparently describe, often in only very few words, a phenomenon of minor significance to the general public, but for which the writer may have — which will often not be recognizable — needed hours or even days (or weeks or ...) to ascertain the necessary information. Article of mine, which I have found affected by such a ‹deletion addiction›, have e.g. been short articles (a few lines) about older scientific magazines, which have changed their name or have been merged with other ones or are no longer published … Since they in these cases have not own websites, e.g., it is otherwise very difficult to get such information. And since to a reader a short or specific article about a topic, which cannot easily be found in any currently published printed reference work, is of more crucial importance than articles on e.g. "Time" or "Space" or "Music", which often are full of memory-expensive photos and do hardly contain any information which one cannot get easily elsewhere, I, if you will forgive me these words, think, that 'Wikipedians' should have better things to do than to permanently look which new articles can be deleted, and which other 'Wikipedians' be frustrated by time-consuming discussions about or arbitrary deletions of their articles, which certainly in almost all cases have costed enough efforts to be worth to be honoured ...
 * ↑ Auriong (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the policy on original research. Articles on original, unpublished ideas are just not appropriate for Wikipedia. The calendar articles you list above are historical articles on proposals that were published and have been written about. Some of them are in fact not very notable and perhaps should not be kept. Brianyoumans (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Something made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR; no indication this is anything other than an unpublished proposal by the creator of the article, and thus not suitable for Wikipedia, now matter how potentially useful it may be, or (sadly) how much effort went into creating it. Anaxial (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable OR Tim Ross   (talk)  17:22, 2 February 2009 (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.