- 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. Rlevse 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: only verifiable mention of this in a reliable source is a very, very brief mention in a book, which is not being "addressed in depth in reliable, published works whose sources are independent of the subject itself" as required for notability. --Pak21 17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are many, many articles on WP that have but one mention in another source, often a newspaper. This calendar isn't discussed in every journal these days, but it is a very legitimate calendar proposal that got "press" in the 20th century (if "publicity" is a good measure of notability, which it is obviously not.) The nominator posted a warning that sources were required, and a source for this calendar was produced. The book that serves as a source is a legitimate one, printed by a major publishing house, not a self-published paper or even an obscure journal. It should suffice. Yet, it was immdiately put up for deletion after the actions of the nominator were challenged. I believe this is being deleted as part of a what seems to be a very aggressive deletion strategy of most calendar reform proposals, based in part upon what isn't even an accepted WP guideline, but instead, a proposal for a guideline, on Notability. One thing is certain, it is NOT currently a policy, and shouldn't be aggresively interpreted as such. When every cartoon character or minor video game character is afforded an article on Wikipedia, going after calendar reform proposals seems a bit absurd. - Nhprman List 21:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm really not sure where to start here, but let's try:
- Exactly what are you claiming is a "proposal for a guideline"? Verifiability is one of the five pillars. Notability and reliable sources are both accepted guidelines.
- The claimed source for this calendar (Steel, 2000) says nothing more than "In 1930, there was another leap-week calendar proposal put forward, this time by a Jesuit, James A. Colligan". That does not appear to fulfil the verifiability requirement that "any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source", as it does not give any details of the calendar beyond its inventor and the date of invention. Which sources are being referred to for the rest of the information in the article?
- The line of reasoning of "What about article x?" is well covered at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and the further linked essays; I see no need to rehash them further here. --Pak21 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is all sorts of lawyerly cleverness one could throw at this argument, and the previous post is a masterful example of this technique. Suffice it to say this *seems to be* a selective purge of certain pages, and despite the fact that a clever answer has been written by someone in the past that "crap" exists elsewhere, the implication that this is "crap" is not an argument, it's an attack.
And let me elaborate, and clarify, my previous comments. First, Notability is a GUIDELINE, and carries with it far less weight than a policy, and even as a Guideline, its meaning and application here is hotly disputed, as the Notability article's history of reversions and extensive revisions can attest to. As for Reliable sources, they are being added at this point, so this process of deletion was a bit premature. - Nhprman List 02:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong in several ways. You are not assuming good faith by assuming that this is some kind of "selective purge". The application of notability here at AFD is the subject of widespread agreement. It has been in use at AFD for several years, now. The current dispute was caused by a few editors trying to change the long-standing definition to something else. And it was you that called articles crap, by employing the long-discredited Pokémon argument, not Pak21. Uncle G 08:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm hoping for the day when wanton deletionism is just as discredited as that argument, which was apparently written by deletionists, and is a straw many anyway, since clearly this calendar isn't as well known as the Pokemon characters, and no one is saying this. The "other crap exists" essay was similarly designed to build up the idea that all deletions are valid, and shouldn't be questioned. Sorry. I question all deletions, and wonder why deletionists don't simply improve articles, not run around deleting dozens of them. I'm assuming you're acting on your best judgement when you nominate the many articles for deletion you do, and not out of malice, even though you seem to be aggressively applying a guideline that clearly is still in hot dispute. Let me also note that two people commenting here is not sufficient for a consensus. It's good that you relisted this. Let's hope people find their way here on their own to comment on it further. - Nhprman List 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong in several ways. You are not assuming good faith by assuming that this is some kind of "selective purge". The application of notability here at AFD is the subject of widespread agreement. It has been in use at AFD for several years, now. The current dispute was caused by a few editors trying to change the long-standing definition to something else. And it was you that called articles crap, by employing the long-discredited Pokémon argument, not Pak21. Uncle G 08:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm really not sure where to start here, but let's try:
- Lance Latham (1998). Standard C Date/Time Library: programming the world's calendars and clocks. CMP Books. p. 471. ISBN 0879304960. — 6 paragraphs on Colligan's calendar and its drawbacks. Uncle G 00:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 02:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just because something is obscure (to the Internet culture) doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Dusty old tomes may be the only sources we'll find on this. Thanks for finding another one, Uncle G. Do you live in a library? —Carolfrog 07:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep There are many notable items that just haven't made it online to a great extent. The intent behind WP:V isn't "Can I verify this in ten minutes without leaving my computer?" The intent is "Can I verify this?" A book is as good a resource as a website. Editing to add sig. --Charlene 12:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Very obscure, quite notable.--Absurdist 02:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at worst, Merge to Leap week calendar. Pak21 has nominated many calandar reform topics as per this AfD Discussion Two articles have been successfully deleted thus far, and Pak21 has removed all mention of the topics from Calendar reform thereby removing valuable content from a good article, including all external links...In addition, the availability of sub-topics such as Lunisolar calendar, Leap week calendar, & Solar calendar for which these articles would provide strong supplementary material has been completely disregarded. The sources provided are based on simple calculations and are both non-trivial and respectable as per Wikis guidelines. In addition, the articles are well written. Removing these articles without regard to the value they add if merged to existing subheadings may adhere to the letter of guidelines for individual articles, but degrades wiki in the process. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 13:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.