Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darian 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 keep. After some discussion, there seems consensus that there are sufficient good sources to be found, despite a lengthy list of poor quality ones. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Darian calendar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An interesting idea, but not one that has significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. It has been referenced, mostly as a curiosity, in a couple of books but in-depth coverage has come from a single source, the man who proposed the system himself. A brief section in timekeeping on Mars is probably warrented here but not a dedicated article. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete According to Issues and options for a Martian calendar the Darian calendar is one of >70! proposed calendars and "there is still no standardised system for expressing the date on Mars." There is already a paragraph on Darian at Timekeeping on Mars. There is not enough significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article nor to merge the bulk of this article to ToM per undue weight. Having said that, the contributors to this article are invited to ping me or ask at v:Wikiversity:Requests for Import should they wish to develop a resource at Wikiversity on this topic. --mikeu talk 01:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is well sourced and includes a considerable number of (non-inline) reliable references such as American Astronautical Society and Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. That it is one of many proposed Martian calendars is all the more a reason to keep it. Markvs88 (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources are certainly numerous, but are they in-depth? Are they independent? Seven of the eleven inline cites and six of the eleven references are to Gangale, the inventor of the calendar, so don't count towards notability.  The Allison source just lists it in tables with dozens of other proposals, not in-depth.  The Moss source is a deadlink and the claimed archive link has nothing useful in it.  I'll take another look tomorrow, but so far, it's not looking good. SpinningSpark 00:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair points, all. I have broken out a "non-fiction" section, and added two new (definitely independent) sources, as well as moving one of the extant references to inline. Two of the three are in published books. I believe that with a bit more work this will pass wp:gng. Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think an "In non-fiction" section is a terrible idea. Our article is a non-fiction article about a non-fiction subject and anything relevant those sources have to say should be a cited fact in the article. Of the two sources you have added, the Micro Lessons source is useless; it is only a passing mention and goes on to link to the Wikipedia article, thus suggesting that's where they got the information.  It's not an improvement and shouldn't be in the article at all.  On the other hand, the Encyclopaedia of Metrology has a substantial article and goes a good way towards GNG.  One more like that (GNG requires sources plural) and I'll change to keep.  The story that Gangale got the idea from a Heinlein SF book is a great out-of-universe fact that could be cited in the "In fiction" section, greatly improving that sections encycloaedic worth. SpinningSpark 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you can come up with a better heading, please feel free to change it. Since not all of the non-fiction sources are academic journals I was stumped. I disagree on "Micro Lesssons": it is not useless because it lends credence to the idea that of the 70 or so proposed Martian calendars that it is one of the "best choices" or "major options" and therefore satisfies wp:NRV. It's not enough for notability alone, but it does help. Yes, they do link to Wikipedia for the reader to get more information, BUT they are an academic group STATING that the calendar is relevant themselves and not due to Wikipedia. In any event, I've added two new finds: the presentation of the calendar at founding meeting of the Mars Society and it being mentioned in the Fortnightly Review. Markvs88 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect, no independent, in-depth coverage meeting GNG. It already has a paragraph in Timekeeping on Mars which is sufficient.  I'll change my !vote if someone can point to decent coverage.  Here is my analysis of the sources in the article;
 * Notes
 * Gangale (7 refs), not independent
 * Allison, passing mention
 * Moss, deadlink, including all archives
 * Clancy, not even a mention
 * Aitken, not even a mention
 * References
 * Bennett, a work of fiction (Star Trek)
 * Gangale (6 refs), not independent
 * Hale-Evans, barely a paragraph in a lightweight self-help book
 * Rajaniemi, a work of fiction
 * Sakers, one sentence and some passing mentions in a book about science fiction
 * Smith, one brief paragraph
 * SpinningSpark 09:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Changing to keep. There is a substantial article in Astronomy Now which together with the substantial source found by Markvs88 gets it past GNG. SpinningSpark</b> 18:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The article kind of annoys me in the way it drags in every last scrap of passing mention and micro-notability; it's doing a good impression of a non-notable topic frantically trying to prove the opposite (that "Darian calendar in non-fiction" section makes me cringe). Despite this unfortunate presentation, I think there's in fact enough secondary coverage to squeeze through. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with that impression. It was the extremely poor referencing that led me to initially !vote delete. If this is kept, I intend to clean that up somewhat. <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 20:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have lots of references and a subject that should have info available on Wikipedia.--AfPEN (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. New sources give at least a technical pass of GNG. Large amount of non-RS cover this subject on google searchs, which means that this topic is also interesting to our readers. Britishfinance (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.