392:. It's not enough for notability alone, but it does help. Yes, they do link to Knowledge for the reader to get more information, BUT they are an academic group STATING that the calendar is relevant themselves and not due to Knowledge. In any event, I've added two new finds: the presentation of the calendar at founding meeting of the
387:
Okay, if you can come up with a better heading, please feel free to change it. Since not all of the non-fiction sources are academic journals I was stumped. I disagree on "Micro
Lesssons": it is not useless because it lends credence to the idea that of the 70 or so proposed Martian calendars that it
370:
has a substantial article and goes a good way towards GNG. One more like that (GNG requires sources plural) and I'll change to keep. The story that
Gangale got the idea from a Heinlein SF book is a great out-of-universe fact that could be cited in the "In fiction" section, greatly improving that
533:
The article kind of annoys me in the way it drags in every last scrap of passing mention and micro-notability; it's doing a good impression of a non-notable topic frantically trying to prove the opposite (that "Darian calendar in non-fiction" section makes me cringe). Despite this unfortunate
316:
The sources are certainly numerous, but are they in-depth? Are they independent? Seven of the eleven inline cites and six of the eleven references are to
Gangale, the inventor of the calendar, so don't count towards notability. The Allison source just lists it in tables with dozens of other
242:
An interesting idea, but not one that has significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. It has been referenced, mostly as a curiosity, in a couple of books but in-depth coverage has come from a single source, the man who proposed the system himself. A brief section in
341:
Fair points, all. I have broken out a "non-fiction" section, and added two new (definitely independent) sources, as well as moving one of the extant references to inline. Two of the three are in published books. I believe that with a bit more work this will pass
274:. There is not enough significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article nor to merge the bulk of this article to ToM per undue weight. Having said that, the contributors to this article are invited to ping me or ask at
360:
I think an "In non-fiction" section is a terrible idea. Our article is a non-fiction article about a non-fiction subject and anything relevant those sources have to say should be a cited fact in the article. Of the two sources you have added, the
365:
source is useless; it is only a passing mention and goes on to link to the
Knowledge article, thus suggesting that's where they got the information. It's not an improvement and shouldn't be in the article at all. On the other hand, the
211:
509:
317:
proposals, not in-depth. The Moss source is a deadlink and the claimed archive link has nothing useful in it. I'll take another look tomorrow, but so far, it's not looking good.
601:. New sources give at least a technical pass of GNG. Large amount of non-RS cover this subject on google searchs, which means that this topic is also interesting to our readers.
205:
164:
560:
Fully agree with that impression. It was the extremely poor referencing that led me to initially !vote delete. If this is kept, I intend to clean that up somewhat.
299:
111:
96:
52:. After some discussion, there seems consensus that there are sufficient good sources to be found, despite a lengthy list of poor quality ones.
270:
70! proposed calendars and "there is still no standardised system for expressing the date on Mars." There is already a paragraph on Darian at
171:
433:
which is sufficient. I'll change my !vote if someone can point to decent coverage. Here is my analysis of the sources in the article;
137:
132:
141:
124:
91:
84:
17:
226:
295:
193:
546:
275:
105:
101:
252:
627:
187:
40:
606:
610:
593:
571:
566:
551:
525:
520:
495:
490:
409:
382:
377:
355:
328:
323:
311:
282:
256:
183:
66:
623:
248:
62:
36:
233:
128:
602:
430:
271:
244:
219:
584:. Seems to have lots of references and a subject that should have info available on Knowledge.--
561:
515:
485:
405:
397:
372:
351:
318:
307:
542:
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
622:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
199:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
58:
589:
120:
72:
302:. That it is one of many proposed Martian calendars is all the more a reason to keep it.
54:
534:
presentation, I think there's in fact enough secondary coverage to squeeze through. --
266:
401:
389:
347:
343:
303:
536:
393:
158:
429:, no independent, in-depth coverage meeting GNG. It already has a paragraph in
514:
which together with the substantial source found by Markvs88 gets it past GNG.
290:
The article is well sourced and includes a considerable number of (non-inline)
585:
471:
Sakers, one sentence and some passing mentions in a book about science fiction
279:
388:
is one of the "best choices" or "major options" and therefore satisfies
278:
should they wish to develop a resource at
Wikiversity on this topic. --
618:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
465:
Hale-Evans, barely a paragraph in a lightweight self-help book
247:
is probably warrented here but not a dedicated article.
154:
150:
146:
218:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
630:). No further edits should be made to this page.
300:Journal of the British Interplanetary Society
232:
8:
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
267:Issues and options for a Martian calendar
459:Bennett, a work of fiction (Star Trek)
445:Moss, deadlink, including all archives
508:. There is a substantial article in
7:
269:the Darian calendar is one of : -->
24:
462:Gangale (6 refs), not independent
439:Gangale (7 refs), not independent
276:v:Wikiversity:Requests for Import
97:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
396:and it being mentioned in the
296:American Astronautical Society
1:
371:sections encycloaedic worth.
468:Rajaniemi, a work of fiction
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
647:
611:21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
594:08:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
572:20:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
552:20:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
526:18:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
496:09:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
474:Smith, one brief paragraph
451:Aitken, not even a mention
448:Clancy, not even a mention
410:02:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
383:18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
368:Encyclopaedia of Metrology
356:14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
329:00:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
312:11:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
283:01:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
257:20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
67:22:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
620:Please do not modify it.
442:Allison, passing mention
32:Please do not modify it.
85:Articles for deletion
431:Timekeeping on Mars
294:references such as
272:Timekeeping on Mars
245:timekeeping on Mars
55:(non-admin closure)
398:Fortnightly Review
550:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
57:
638:
540:
539:
249:MadeYourReadThis
237:
236:
222:
174:
162:
144:
82:
53:
34:
646:
645:
641:
640:
639:
637:
636:
635:
634:
628:deletion review
535:
179:
170:
135:
121:Darian calendar
119:
116:
79:
76:
73:Darian calendar
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
644:
642:
633:
632:
614:
613:
603:Britishfinance
596:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
555:
554:
528:
501:
500:
499:
498:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
469:
466:
463:
460:
454:
453:
452:
449:
446:
443:
440:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
334:
333:
332:
331:
285:
240:
239:
176:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
643:
631:
629:
625:
621:
616:
615:
612:
608:
604:
600:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
580:
579:
573:
570:
569:
565:
564:
559:
558:
557:
556:
553:
548:
544:
538:
532:
529:
527:
524:
523:
519:
518:
513:
512:
511:Astronomy Now
507:
503:
502:
497:
494:
493:
489:
488:
484:
483:
482:
481:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
457:
455:
450:
447:
444:
441:
438:
437:
435:
434:
432:
428:
427:
423:
422:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
384:
381:
380:
376:
375:
369:
364:
363:Micro Lessons
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
330:
327:
326:
322:
321:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
286:
284:
281:
277:
273:
268:
265:According to
264:
261:
260:
259:
258:
254:
250:
246:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:Find sources:
177:
173:
169:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
619:
617:
598:
581:
567:
562:
530:
521:
516:
510:
505:
504:Changing to
491:
486:
425:
424:
394:Mars Society
378:
373:
367:
362:
324:
319:
291:
287:
262:
241:
229:
223:
215:
208:
202:
196:
190:
180:
167:
78:
49:
47:
31:
28:
456:References
206:free images
59:Nosebagbear
624:talk page
531:Weak keep
37:talk page
626:or in a
563:Spinning
547:contribs
517:Spinning
487:Spinning
426:Redirect
402:Markvs88
374:Spinning
348:Markvs88
320:Spinning
304:Markvs88
292:reliable
165:View log
106:glossary
39:or in a
537:Elmidae
212:WP refs
200:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
436:Notes
390:wp:NRV
344:wp:gng
263:Delete
184:Google
142:delete
586:AfPEN
568:Spark
522:Spark
492:Spark
379:Spark
325:Spark
280:mikeu
227:JSTOR
188:books
172:Stats
159:views
151:watch
147:links
16:<
607:talk
599:Keep
590:talk
582:Keep
543:talk
506:keep
406:talk
352:talk
308:talk
298:and
288:Keep
253:talk
220:FENS
194:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
63:talk
50:keep
234:TWL
163:– (
609:)
592:)
545:·
408:)
400:.
354:)
346:.
310:)
255:)
214:)
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
65:)
605:(
588:(
549:)
541:(
404:(
350:(
306:(
251:(
238:)
230:·
224:·
216:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
186:(
178:(
175:)
168:·
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.