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 Delete - the topic has not been published in peer-reviewed journals and does not appear to have any support beyond that of its creator. Richardcavell 01:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sol Calendar[edit]

Sol Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete: proposed calendar with no sign of verifiable references from reliable sources --Pak21 09:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per arguments re Meyer-Palmen_Solilunar_Calendar --Dweller 10:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at worst, Merge to an appropriate subheading. 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 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: neither the calendar creator's webpage, or a random review by Nhprman (who created this article) are reliable sources. --Pak21 13:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original ideas, only those which have been covered in secondary and independent sources. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:27, 3 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.