Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solar cycle (calendar) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Solar cycle (calendar)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Indiscriminate collection of topics that are more thoroughly and appropriately discussed in other articles. Request for sources has not been responded to since 2009. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, per the available reliable sources. I have added some to the article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above sources added by SailingInABathTub, it should pass GNG now. TheChronium  14:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article now really has only one good source, Christianson (2000). One of the remaining is by an astrological publisher, and the rest are at least 100 years old. Phillip (2012) is a republication of a 1921 work. Calendars may be slowly-changing topic, but more current sources are appropriate to determine what is notable enough for an article. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep But I removed the table that seems redundant.--SilverMatsu (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Weakish keep - IMO there are enough sources to demonstrate notability, and I've added Cheney's Handbook (edition of 2012), the standard British reference work on calendars and cycles. However, the article requires a lot of work. Ingratis (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is now sufficient reliable sources coverage for a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This goes with the rules for determining the date of Easter, to be found in the front of Anglican prayer books. Cheney is certainly an appropriate source to cite.  As a historian I use it regularly to convert dates in documents, such as Tuesday after Conversion of St Paul 5 Edward IV into a more recognisable date.  There may however be scope for renaming, but I cannot think of a target.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2021 (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.