Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tranquility 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.  Sandstein  07:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Tranquility Calendar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I nominate this article for deletion because I cannot find any mention of it in any reliable source, other than the source cited in the article, which was written by the calendar creator. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability. Reywas92Talk 19:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If lack of sourcing is the issue, then would a quick trawl through the results of a quick google search, such as the entry in the Encyclopaedia of Historical Metrology, Weights, and Measures, provide sufficient links to add to the Sources section? If not, then instead of outright deleting the article, perhaps it could be merged into an article on similar 13-month-plus-a-day calendar proposals? DataPacRat (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it is that lots of people like to create their own new calendars, which never receive any serious consideration by any ruler or group that has the slightest chance of implementing it. These hobby calendars really have no place in Wikipedia, neither as independent articles, nor as being mentioned in any articles. I am not familiar with the Encyclopaedia of Historical Metrology, Weights, and Measures. If it is a reputable publication, and someone could gain access to a copy (rather than a tiny Google Books clip) then it might be a good enough source to mention the calendar in some other article, such as "Calendar reform". Jc3s5h (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2019 (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.