Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran computational calendar: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 14:
:[[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)
:::Thank you. I apologise for posting in the [[Calendar_reform#13-month calendars|calendar reform article]]. I should have posted in the [[Talk:Calendar_reform#13 Month Calendar|calendar reform talk page]] before making any modifications (though I didn't understand or know of the existance of talk pages before now). I believe the terran computational calendar is an excellent alternative in conjunction with (not replacement for) the current [[ISO_8601]] standardized calendar and gregorian calendar and I believe that the article is not at all "a bad idea". This being said, I agree that this article is not inline with many wikipedia expectations, and therefore I'll withdraw my thoughts and questions on this matter over to [[Talk:Terran_computational_calendar|the terran computational calendar talk page]], [[User talk:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h's talk page]], and maybe eventually the [[Talk:Calendar_reform#13 Month Calendar|calendar reform talk page]]. [[User:Chimeraha|Chimeraha]] ([[User talk:Chimeraha|talk]]) 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
| |||