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 subject of this article does not appear to have any widespread notability or support beyond that given by its creator. If it appears in academic literature then we might reconsider. - Richardcavell 01:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The 30x11 Calendar[edit]

The 30x11 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 09:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments at Meyer-Palmen_Solilunar_Calendar --Dweller 10:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unverified and unsourced, and thereby nonnotable, proposed calender.-- danntm ^T _C 18:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an ingenious invention if not sourceable, and created by a Wikipedian, otherwise as yet unsourced but potentially useful concept of a calendar. --Danielsavoiu 20:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if it's not sourceable, it must be deleted. Attribution is non-negotiable. --Pak21 08:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Proposed calendar is nice, perhaps useful. However, there is no independent verifiability of this calendar. If more sources could be found, I'd support keeping it. Google search leads me back to the Wikipedia article or the only reference link posted. --myselfalso 22:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep i dont see the need to delete. its a simple concept, and really doesnt need more than one source to explain it. also i think it is novel enough compared to other calendar reforms to warrant an article on wikipedia, regardless if it was created by a wikipedian. but if it comes down to deleting it i'd propose having it in a consolidated blurb on the calendar reform article.Some thing 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, perilously close to WP:NFT. Anyone can design something like this, the point is that nobody appears to be using it. >Radiant< 16:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain Cman 02:37, 1 March 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: I do not see how either the creator's webpage or a calendars Wiki could be described as a reliable source --Pak21 13:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting proposal, and certainly wasn't just thought up here on Wikipedia. --AlexWCovington (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while it may be interesting, it is not attributable, which all information on Wikipedia must be. --Pak21 08:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia does not publish original thought or ideas, no matter how intriguing they may be. If secondary sources cover this concept, it can be recreated at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:25, 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.