Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triangular Earth Calendar

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete following transwiki. Carried out at 18:46, 2 Jan 2005 by User:Jpgordon

Triangular Earth Calendar
interesting stuff. fine article. but almost certainly falls under original research. only thing google turned up under the phrase was this slashdot subthread. wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas or original research. Michael Ward 16:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some kind of currency is shown, it seems a non-notable proposal. It also contains a non-Wikipedia copyright licence.  Besides, you can't have a triangular calendar; everybody knows that time is a cube.  -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - It contains content under an open ended copyright (mine), which is free for use, and acceptable under the Wikipedia Copyright. It infringes no copyright, as it is my own original content. As for original research, I would submit that this article is just as valid as existing articles, especially those methods of time kookery and Original content based on previous concepts, which are original ideas, but only follow the standards of Wikipedia policy because of a portion of news coverage. I support TEC because it was published prior to the Wikipedia article on an independant website.  It does not contain a viewpoint, but rather, which was my goal, a non-biased explination of TEC.  I also submit that it is a listing of an alternative calendar format, which I support that alternative calendar formats have been very newsworthy.  I have stated the key concepts, and made proper comparisons to existing work.  I further submit that much of the format is already published in a lesser format as the Chinese Ten-Month Solar Calendar, which consists of 360 days, plus 5 or 6.  TEC uses a similar format, but conforms to the Gregorian calendar in terms of the length of the year in days, leap years, and in the format of standard weeks.  If you read on the Ten-Month Solar Calendar (google for "ten month" solar calendar), you will see that it is widely documented, and the concepts date back thousands of years, including the Romans and Chinese.   Thus, it does not represent such original work, as defined by Wikipedia, but combined work, all of which is extensively peer reviewed under each seperate criteria.  It also does not introduce any new terms.  It uses months, weeks, days, mathematical concepts, etc.  The only term that I know that it defines newly is the TEC Decimal Day which is not really a new term, but an explination simply of how TEC uses Decimal time.  To summarize, I state that the concepts here are all existing, including the written formats, both mathematical, geometrical, and in script, that the original work has be prior published, that it is non-biased, and that it holds no copyright that prevents Wikipedia use. --DeWayne Lehman 18:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, no currency. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium nor a research journal. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 19:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; I agree that it is original research not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is solely the idea of and promoted by the author. Furthermore, any copyright, even one as broad as the author's is unacceptable on Wikipedia. The cited Ten-Month Solar Calendar is not Chinese, but that of Yi, a minority culture within modern China. The dominant Chinese calendar used since the sencond millennium BC has always had at least twelve months &mdash; even a fourteen month year is mentioned on oracle bones. The Roman ten month year was used, according to legend, for less than fifty years, and furthermore had 304 days (it ignored winter). Simply citing earlier ten month years does not change the nature of the author's original research nor his copyright. &mdash; Joe Kress 20:08, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete, because this is indeed original research. Its hard to condemn such a neatly written article when you see the junk that sometimes survive VfD only to go in orphaning forever.... Phils 21:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''If you contribute material to Wikipedia, you thereby license it to the public under the GFDL (with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In order to contribute, you therefore must be in a position to grant this license, which means that either''
 * I don't mean to get off on two side topics, but Wikipedia explicitly states:


 * you own the copyright to the material, for instance because you produced it yourself, or
 * you acquired the material from a source that allows the licensing under GFDL, for instance because the material is in the public domain or is itself published under GFDL.

''In the first case, you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the versions you placed here: that material will remain under GFDL forever''.

All original content works are copyrighted to the original writer (which I believe is most works on Wikipedia), with GFDL granted by the owner when they publish here. Even without explicitly stating it, the copyright is owned by me, with GFDL appended to it, according to Wikipedia Copyright. The only difference with appending the copyright is to state that I have granted rights for all material I publish on the TEC, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. It does not affect the fact that the GFDL is granted to the copyright of the article text. The copyright was already placed on the TEC before publication to Wikipedia, anyways, so it would apply regardless, just as McDonalds logo trademarks and copyright are not altered simply because Wikipedia has an article on them.

As for the 10-Month Solar Calendar and the Yi ethnic group, they are a population of 6,578,500 people. That may be a minority for China, but it is larger than the entire population of Minnesota. It doesn't look good for the TEC on Wikipedia at the moment. Perhaps I should get to work on an article about the Yi and their calendar first. It gets the basic idea across, at least, even if I can't include any of my own thoughts. It seems I can only hope someday to get /.'d and have at least a few hundred TEC users before I can republish this. Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent. --DeWayne Lehman 22:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, and encourage Mr. Lehman to write about the Yi calendar. Tuf-Kat 22:19, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * del. Mikkalai 23:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. If other articles are not appropriate for Wikipedia, then they should be deleted, too, but that does not make them a rationale for the one in question.  Perhaps the Time Cube article should also be deleted, but at least it seems to have more independent references.  Swatch's watches have been sold to thousands around the world and reported on by major media sources, such as CNN, so that makes it notable. -- Nike 01:07, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Time Cube may be kookery, but it's notable kookery. I'd favor trimming it a bit, and maybe folding into Gene Ray, but it definitely should be in Wikipedia. --Carnildo 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. Megan1967 01:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research and acknowledged as such by person claiming authorship. Mr. Lehman is encouraged to contribute an article about the Yi calendar. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:12, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research/self-promotion. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:39, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: original research, promo. Interesting, though. After it catches on it can have an article. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:47, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting original research, but still original. --Carnildo 11:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Moved - I have moved Triangular Earth Calendar to Wikibooks. --DeWayne Lehman 22:08, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Notice Lehman has changed his copyright notice to specifically grant GDPL and claim he's the original author. However, the part about copyrighting it so nobody else can is nonsense... nobody other than the original author can obtain or grant a copyright in the first place. LostCluster 03:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I've clarified the copyright because of the previous misunderstanding. I posted that I'm the original author so as to differenciate between what I have granted original work to GFDL and what others grant (in revisions). But, as it is on Wikibooks, if you wish to discuss this further, I would suggest doing it there as it is a non-issue here. --DeWayne Lehman 18:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody's going to adopt a calendar that has a copyright on it when there's already one that's in the public domain that everyone else is using. LostCluster 03:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete now that page's author replaced page with request for deletion. DreamGuy 02:39, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.