Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reform of the date of Easter

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 no consensus. W.marsh 17:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reform of the date of Easter

The article seems to be about a nearly non-existent controversy. There are no calls or movements to change the date of Easter to a fixed date that I'VE ever seen, and I've been actively involved in church life, including liturgical reform, for a long time, now. And the article cites no sources indicating that there actually is such a movement. I think it may be the article creator's personal controversy. Carlo 21:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Aleppo proposal mentioned certainly is a matter of record. Some of the other suggestions I haven't heard of but none would surprise me. With a rewrite this could be a very presentable article. -- BPMullins | Talk 00:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But the Allepo proposal is a proposal to bring the Eastern and Western calendars together. It has nothing to with making Easter have a fixed, yearly calendar date, which is the main thrust of the article. Have there been any such serious proposals? Carlo 00:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is one of the topics in the article. With a rewrite the article can be more clearly about Easter date reform in general. Here is a web page that states that John XXIII apparently had no problem with fixing Easter to a particular Sunday. The topic's larger than pinning Easter to a particular Gregorian calendar date. I'll add more references in a bit. -- BPMullins | Talk 02:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research with no attributions to any source. Reads more like an essay instead of an encyclopedic article. No reliable third-party sources presented to show that this topic is even notable. The article states that proposals have been made but doesn't say who made them. --Farix (Talk) 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cite sources. RandomCritic 04:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It is principally a historical article, although it does not mention several notable attempts to reform the date of Easter, such as the British Easter Act of 1928 which placed Easter on the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April (still on the books, but requiring an Order in Council that is vetted by both houses of Parliament).[1][2] — Joe Kress 05:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does indeed read like an OR essay. Remove the unattributed info, and very little remains. An article on the historical controversies around the date/computation of Easter already exists (Easter controversy). -- Pastordavid 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've certainly heard of the proposal before, outside WP. I've added a citation.– Tivedshambo (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete, Contains little that isn't at Easter controversy. An article about the conference in Syria would have a different title. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established, and no sources.--Sefringle 06:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No sources? What are those links at the bottom of the page?– Tivedshambo (talk) 07:30, 24 February 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.