Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin Era


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Era

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

non-notable social calendar; I'm not quite sure why it was contested. It was proposed on 1 January of this year, hasn't been adopted by any country/organisation/social system and stinks of WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete Seems that you can download a calendar from www.darwinera.org, but somehow the Darwin Era has escaped the notice of the media . (All those Spanish articles that include things like "Darwin era un hombre valiente" need explaining-- "era" is a past-tense of the verb "ser" and means "was". Mandsford (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Undecided for now. The search term "Darwin era calendar" (in quotes) had 77 hits on Google, including a few from Wikipedia and a few to the source, darwinera.org. There were 38 hits on Yahoo. As mentioned above, no hits on Google News. So it's pretty thin on notability. Verifiable: Yes. Reliable sources: weak. This his sort of thing could become significant in the humanist community, because of their near-worship of Charles Darwin, or it may fizzle out completely and become only a dim memory like Fitzmas. (Who remembers that now?). If this article is kept, it should probably be moved to Darwin era calendar, because the article is not about a so-called Darwin era, as much as the calendar itself. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 21:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No independant sources, no indication of notability.  Probably could have been speedied as spam. Edward321 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete sources are thin, reliable sources are close to zero. Tavix (talk) 04:16, 16 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.