Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma 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 and WP:SALT both Sukuma calendar and Sukuma Calendar. Note that after this close I have also nominated Draft:Sukuma Calendar for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sukuma Calendar. North America1000 00:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sukuma calendar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously deleted at Sukuma Calendar as a blatant hoax. See also Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 51, about related articles created by the same user. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * delete no evidence it is true. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * delete - if more material were available about the festivals, those could be merged into Sukuma people, but there isn't. Further, there isn't really anything about a calendar here, even if it isn't a hoax. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At least one of the sources cited by the article does not mention this calendar. This source does, though, which makes me doubt that this is a complete hoax. A search for further sources reveals very little, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The book does use the phrase "Sukuma calendar", but it appears it was used in an informal sense. Still, no evidence there is an established 'calendar' in astronomical sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Whether the Sukuma have a calendar or not, this article presents a verifiability problem as well as attributing beliefs about it to no one and not completely making sense. It provides no source for a calendar emerging "about 5,776" [sic] years ago, and I find no matches through Google or Google Scholar supporting this. The second half of the lead sentence seems to be a non sequitur. It says the Sukuma are "believed" to have advanced their astronomical skills without saying who believes this, or even why noticing the shifting nighttime sky marks an advancement of astronomical skills rather than being pretty basic. Unless they're using the Gregorian calendar, their solar festivals wouldn't be on the same Gregorian date every year; there's no mention of the months of this calendar, even how many of them there are in a given year (12? 13?), which means this article covers some details without establishing a foundation with the necessary basics. Without sources for this information, it would be impossible for anyone to fill this in or verify what's already there. Largoplazo (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article creator has left a comment at Talk:Sukuma calendar, arguing for keeping the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- For a calendar to have started in about 3600 BC, as claimed, it would have been necessary for the people to be literate; otherwise it would not have survived unchanged. This relates to an area on the southern side of Lake Victoria, an area not noted for having any ancient writing.  Clearly HOAX.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. All that I can find, from the references and by a search, is that the Sukuma, like many agricultural communities, have an annual cycle for their activities based on the movement of the stars, with associated ceremonies. That might be worth a mention in Sukuma people but is not notable enough for an article. All the stuff about "5776 solar years" and the "ancient Sukuma" is on an unsourced "it is believed" basis, failing WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 21 November 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.