Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran computational calendar: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 12:
I'm new to Wikipedia and the author of this article. All your suppositions are correct, although I can assure you that much thought, research, documentation, trial & error, and precise programming has gone into the calendar's creation. What modifications or ommissions would you suggest to keep this on wikipedia? If the complete removal of this aricle is the unanimous decision of the wikipedia community (with the exception of the author), what kinds of things (reputation, reliable sources, etc.) must happen in order for it to become a worthy wikipedia page in the future? ([[User:Chimeraha|Chimeraha]] ([[User talk:Chimeraha|talk]]) 01:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC))
:[[Wikipedia: Notability]] outlines the requirements for a topic to be worthy of an article. [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] explains that even if a topic is notable, it would be inappropriate for the inventor of a calendar to write a Wikipedia article about it. Personally, I look to the recent confusion about whether 2000 or 2001 was the first year of the new millennium. Even for the most important calendar in international commerce, no one had the authority to come forward and definitely settle the matter. In view of that, I consider it impossible to replace the Gregorian calendar with some "improved" variant. I would not favor an article on a calendar proposal unless there an exceptional degree of interest in numerous reliable sources over a long period of time (~ 50 years). [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||