Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aristean 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. Sandstein 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Aristean calendar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I've AfD'd this article because I'm uncertain about its notability and I think it needs a proper debate. It's a Christian reform calendar, a rival to the usual Gregorian one. Plenty of ghits. But... when you filter the ghits to exclude geocities, blogs, wikipedia references and secondary hits there's pretty much nothing left. ("Aristean calendar" -geocities -messages -wikipedia -blog).

Most of the hits seem to have arisen from the promotional activities of the author of the article who is the creator of the calendar. There seems to be a small level of interest but nothing that approaches the requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

So IMHO it should be deleted as non-notable and COI. andy 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC) andy 10:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Wow. The article has sources, which, if they check out, would indicate some notability for this unfortunate man who has a unique sense of destiny.  Reading about Mr. Fernando, I feel sorry for him.  If it weren't for the sources, I honestly would suspect a hoax.  The article is definitely POV, written by someone who clearly likes Aristeo Fernando.  However, one doesn't have to be a scientist to see flaws in this poor man's reasoning.  If, indeed, he has been notable enough to have praise written about him, then I suspect that there are other articles that are not as kind (one headline cited was entitled "Time on his hands").  I have a feeling that if a google search turns up many mentions of Mr. Fernando, many will not be flattering.  The idea of a calendar where all the dates stay on the same weekday, year after year, is not new; I think it's called the World calendar.   I will agree that it is novel for someone to have proven that Jesus was crucified in 1 B.C. (not a typo... he also proved that Jesus was born in 33 B.C., according to the article).  I did some cleanup of the form, but left in a great example of a dangling participle concerning the Crucifixion.  Ultimately, I pity Mr. Fernando, and I am not sure that we should subject this harmless man to possible ridicule by future editors of a Wikipedia article.  Mandsford 13:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per the searing analysis already presented. The relevant policies, aside from the obvious WP:COI by the author, are WP:V and WP:NOT. Shalom Hello 01:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The author has left the following comment on the Talk page, which pretty much sums up the problems with this article: "This work is a new proposal to reform the Gregorian calendar. As such, references may be wanting because many are original works from my website which are now being made available to the public through Wikipedia." i.e. COI and OR. andy 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - A lot of work has gone into this concept, but even the creator admits that it is original research, that independent sources are not available and that the Wikipedia article was created as a form of advertising. Euryalus 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unfortunately, as the author has clearly put a lot of work into the concept. However, I do not think Wikipedia is the place for such an article. Wikipedia is supposed to include only information and points that are independently referenced, and can have been discussed/published in sources which have undergone either peer review (as in the case of an academic journal), or some for of editorial control/revision such as a published book. It is true that many claims in Wikipedia articles fall short of this, but that is the ideal, and material that fails this test is "fair game" for removal. The source material for the article is neither peer vetted, or has been subject to editorial control, and the author admits this. While this article and idea may have a valid place on the internet and be open for discussion, it does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's role is not that of a promotion tool. - Vedexent (talk) - 13:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain/Addendum: The author has recently presented a number of media publications which the idea has been presented. I'm unsure whether the collection of sources constitute notability - I have not gone through the various publications and tried to judge their "notability". My "gut reaction" is that the article probably makes the minimal notability requirements, although it does still seem to be a case of someone using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the author admits it's OR and that he wants to use WP for promotion, and the only references he gives are links to his own web pages where he makes a number of promotional claims. Without detailed research we don't know if he has really received even the very limited attention that he claims. But assuming he has, at best it's clear that he has blitzed newspapers and various notables, some of whom have been nice to him. This is nowhere near the requirement of WP:NN for "significant coverage". If this article was about UFOs rather than something sensible we would not be having such a protracted and polite debate! andy 00:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And that is, in my opinion, unfortunate. Should we not treat articles and their justification impartially, whether or not we personally believe that the material is "worthwhile"? -- Vedexent (talk) - 00:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually that was my point. This article fails WP's policies on OR, notability, verifiability and so on. If the article itself was clearly silly there wouldn't be a polite debate about it, but because it's a sensible subject and I suspect there's some sympathy for an author who is well meaning but obviously getting nowhere in his quest, then we're avoiding the issue. After 15 years of trying he's only managed to get a handful of newspaper cuttings and a few kindly letters from VIPs and now he's trying the same thing with WP. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. andy 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment The author seems to be replying solely on the article's talk page, which is somewhat confusing. Check there for his responses to criticisms here. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - While at first blush, this may be a vanity exercise, believe it or not, he has citations for 13 newspaper articles, dating back to 1992. (see: Mandsford, above, alluded to this page.) The catch is, they are cut-and-pasted into his Geocities site. Now, the question is: if it's not online, is it 'verifiable' and is the citation somehow illegitimate? If so, almost all newspaper citations before the Internet age (and many more, since many papers don't archive online) are also illegitimate. I sense, knowing how the wind is blowing on Wikipedia, what the answer will be, since most here are avid deletionists. But I'm hoping for a bit of fair play here. I'm probably foolish for doing so. (P.S. Whether we like the subject of an article or not shouldn't be brought up during deletion discussions.) - Nhprman 02:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources don't have to be on-line to pass WP:V. You can get hold of old copies of newspapers - often dating back to the 19th century at least for significant events. Big name newspapers archived to microfiche well before the internet was around and those archives are still available, some are being transitioned to online resources.Garrie 06:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, yes, that's true. And of course, that was my point. Some here on WP argue that if a "link" cannot be produced, then it's not a valid source. If you read the remarks by others here, that's just the argument that's being made, and it's bogus. - Nhprman 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete This is original research WP:OR. The secondary sources only demonstrate that the person who invented this concept has had trouble getting somebody to take his concept seriously. His concept has only been mentioned in passing and nobody has conducted an indepth review of the concept, rather than the novelty of it. This is one instead for WikiNews. Assize 04:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "Being taken seriously" is not a requirement for an article on Wikipedia. Positive spin in the 13 newspaper articles this fellow's calendar concept has been pubished in isn't a requirement for notability, though the fact that he's been published DOES confer verifiablity. Peer review in an academic journal isn't required before articles may appear here. - Nhprman 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to my comments about notable sources I said that a peer reviewed journal or subject to some form of editorial control as in a book publisher. Newspapers usually fall under this heading of "being under editorial control", although a "local broadsheet" has - in my opinion - little to no editorial credibility, while something like the London Times has a great deal (that is if you don't reject the political leanings of such publications). The guideline to have peer review or external editorial control is there to prevent people from self-publishing a website on a free provider and then claiming that such "publication" constitutes a valid publication reference and therefore confers notability. This article skates very close to that line, and it is a value judgment whether or not it crosses it. Allowing such self-created "references" opens the floodgates to any kind of errant nonsense which people want to take a little effort to creating a "reference" for: I could make addendum to the article on Belgium, for example, explaining that many people contest that the country does not exist and claims to that effect are part of a vast conspiracy. Some neutral, third party, editorial control has to be exercised over published sources to keep this kind of thing from happening, in my opinion. This article has published sources. Whether they are acceptable in their notability is something you'll have to judge on your own. -- Vedexent (talk) - 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The idea that a local paper doesn't have sufficient editorial control is, as you say, completely your opinion, and not a Wikipedia policy. But you changed gears here midway to imply that someone has simply created a Website and called it a "publication" and that it is a "self created reference." Which is it: a poor media reference or a fake, made-up one? The author of that page did neither thing. He simply put the printed texts of these 13 articles, published in real newspapers, onto a geocities page so we could read them, too. And I know saying the word "geocities" around here is like holding up a cross to a vampire, but you folks need to get past it, since it's the content that matters, not where someone has placed it. Frankly, all he has to do is CITE the printed works in the article properly, just like thousands of other articles here, and that's legitimate as a source. Again, the idea that if it ain't online, it's not "real" has soaked into Wikipedia and it's a dangerous and foolish limitation to what is acceptable and what is not. - Nhprman 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wasn't suggesting that his concept wasn't serious, only that the references established only his efforts to have his concept being taken seriously. The sum total of the references are a short interview with a woman on a street and a couple of newspaper articles about the lobbying of the concept. At best, it deserves a short mention on a page that discusses other possible methods of calculating dates. It fails WP:N as not being addressed directly in significant detail in a significant number of sources, and can only be described as trivial coverage. Assize 03:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * A short mention in another article is better than complete elimination, since if this isn't "notable" at this point it is mentionable elsewhere. But given historical precedent here, the Radical Deletionists will not allow it to even be mentioned. - Nhprman 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - OR. 33 geocities reference and another WP page, so it must be good...  Giggy  Talk 07:37, 22 August 2007 (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.