Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetry454 (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. v/r - TP 03:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Symmetry454
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This topic does not appear to have sufficient notability to merit an article. Google books hits 0, Worldcat hits 0, Google scholar hits 1, JSTOR hits 0. The topic might merit a brief mention in an article on calendar reform. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge (somewhere). The article includes four references from reliable sources spanning an eight year period. Pburka (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Calendar reform. There are sources here, but there's not a lot of material. It could easily be covered in the table there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment &mdash; it could be covered in the table there, and probably should be covered in the table there, but the fact that it could be covered somewhere else is not an argument for page deletion. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * keep &mdash; four reliable sources over a multiyear span more than meets the gng. yes, the article needs work.  yes, the sources should be cited inline.  but the sources exist and they speak to the notability of the topic. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe others have a different idea of a "reliable source" from me. I had some idea that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources [...] in history, medicine, and science." I note that alf.laylah.wa.laylah has kindly classified this discussion into the science category. If this was a notable scientific topic, it would have received attention in scientific peer-reviewed journals. It has not (the school magazine of Dr. Bromberg's university, while undoubtedly an academic publication, is not an academic journal). Ergo, it is not notable. Or at least is not notable enough to merit an article; Calendar reform is probably a good place for it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * comment &mdash; the specific notability guidelines don't override the gng and this article, in my opinion, meets that guideline. the fact that it's not discussed in scientific journals, if true, would be because calendar reform is a political issue, rather than a subject of scientific investigation.  the scientific problems of calendars are generally well understood by this point.  i transcluded it over there because it seems like people who are interested in this kind of thing might watch that list, not as a comment on the suitable notability guideline.  &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:44, 21 September 2011 (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.