Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotational year


 * 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. Nakon 01:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Rotational year

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. The article does not actually define the "rotational year", and references a calculation by William R. Livingston (who is that?) which does not define the term either. The other references are completely irrelevant - they do not mention the term. It doesn't appear to be established term, either; possibly a non-standard term for sidereal year. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I support deletion because I've read quite a few reliable sources on the topics of astronomy and calendars, and have never heard of a rotational year. There are no reliable sources mentioned in the article mention "rotational year", so the article topic does not satisfy the WP:Notability guideline. A Google search does not produce any hits outside Wikipedia for this concept in the first few pages of search results. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2016‎ (UTC)
 * I would add that if one goes to the archive page cited in the article and then navigates to the PDF and examines the top of the first page, it will be evident that the creation of this article was a conflict of interest. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete different calculation of year length which does not appear to have acheived notability. If, by some lucky chance, a proper definition and secondary source can be found, add a section to Year. Happy Squirrel (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep My apologies to the Wikipedia community for starting a public page prior to being an expert editor or writer, and for not knowing if I should or should not be commenting here on this page. Wikipedia gives encouragement to new contributors by saying "be bold", and that is what I have done.  I ask for your patience.  I intend that the article will be completed prior to the end of the 7-day delete window; and I hope that you will refrain from final judgement until then, or even later.  I am very happy that Wikipedia exist.  I am also happy that articles must meet certain standards.  I have been studying my topic for years, and I know that the rotational year article will add clarity to other Wikipedia articles which are related to my topic. signed User:bingston
 * Comment Based on the author's comments, I would suggest moving to draft as an alternative to deletion. I believe this is a case where the wp:articles for creation process might be very appropriate., I am sure it is clear to you, but the exact nature of the topic (as compared to other year-length computations) is escaping all of us. Also you cite several international organizations' computations of year length, but it is unclear from the article whether they adopt the rotational year or some other computation. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Happysquirrel. This "rotational year" is clearly invented by Bingston. Only terms that have achieved substantial recognition in the astronomical community deserve a Wikipedia article. Thus this term does not deserve a Wikipedia article and any further pursuit of making it into an article is a waste of time. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I currently consider it unlikely that this will become an article. However, incubating and proceeding through AfC is quite harmless. It will not be passed unless notability is established. The "waste of time" to reviewers is minimal (given that AfC reviewers review based on the current state of the article and nothing else). The positive outcome I was thinking of was mainly the aspect of mentoring a new editor (sort of the difference between jumping into cold water and slipping in gently). Hope that clarifies. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't consider the AFD process a waste of time, but I'm quite sure that any editor who searches for sources to establish the notability of the topic will not be successful. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * CommentI am appreciative of your suggestion. My first choice would be to keep the page active and public.  However, if the article is too much of an aggravation for administrators, I would be very willing to move it instead of having it deleted.  Do I need to decide immediately?  Or can I wait for a warning from an administrator?  Should I assume your comment is a warning, and move the page now?  Thanks. Bingston
 * Comment The first draft of Rotational Year is finished. I will be appreciative of any opportunity to improve it.  Signing off for a week or ten days.  If it becomes clear that one of you will be pushing the delete button, I authorize any other one of you to save it from the aether by any means allowed.  Time for a walkabout.Bingston (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unfortunately this is original research and the concept of a rotational year does not seem to appear in reliable sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is not just OR, it is incoherent. Saying something is "mathematically derived" from something else tells us nothing, so from the very beginning the term is just undefined. Again, it means nothing to say some putative value is "compliant" with other values. The fact that there are two numbers, 365.xyz and 366.xyz, exactly one apart, suggests something to do with the fact that the stars appear to go around exactly one extra (or was it fewer?) times in a year. But this is just mystery making. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2016 (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.