Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Lunisolar 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.  Majorly  (o rly?) 16:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple Lunisolar Calendar

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: original research with no sign of attributable sources. Precedents for deletion: Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar, New Earth Calendar, Sol Calendar and The 30x11 Calendar --Pak21 11:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not the place to propose new ideas unless they have been discussed at some length in the media. Mike 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, I had nothing to do with the article's appearaning on Wikipedia. Delete at will. --Robert Pontisso
 * This comment is unsigned. --Greatwalk 07:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry (still learning). Just curious now: would a specialized mailing list count as a "source"? Robert Pontisso 18:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Maybe", basically dependent on who was saying it. See Using questionable or self-published sources, particularly the section on "Professional self-published sources". Cheers --Pak21 08:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Redirect to Lunisolar calendar. The content is based on a simple calculation as per Wiki policy (What is not original research?) and serves as a well-written example of a Lunisolar calendar, which is a main type of Calendar reform. Since we are mentioning precedents, these articles were not deleted: Symmetry454 and Pax Calendar. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 09:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Symmetry454 was closed as no consensus. Pax Calendar has secondary sources, so I fail see how this supports keeping an article which has no sources. --Pak21 09:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Pak21, the fact that precedents were mentioned at all translates (to me) as you may be referring to 'rules' that exist for you and not Wiki guidelines. Articles for deletion/Symmetry454 was a solid attempt at giving the community a chance to look at all of these well written articles and decide what precedents applied.  You make it abundantly clear they don't deserve individual articles, yet few would support you on the concept that all reference to these calendars needs to be purged from Wiki, which you've been attempting to do every time one of these AfDs falls in your favour.  Articles for deletion/Pax Calendar has secondary sources that someone found offline during the AfD discussion period...I think you might find several of these articles can be similarly supported:  Peter Meyer is a respected C-programmer with an interest in calendar algorithms...truth is, you don't know how these might be sourced and there is no Wiki guideline that would prevent the use of these calendars as examples of calendar types.  Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to discuss this issue at Talk:Calendar reform, but you have for whatever reason decided not to join in. I don't honestly see what else I can do. --Pak21 12:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one responded because you have had this same question answered several times before and have tended to ignore all prior discussion: nonetheless, I've asked for further advice and you have a response now. Regards--Greatwalk 12:53, 11 March 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.