238:
for which these articles would provide strong supplementary material has been completely disregarded. I have withdrawn my observation that these articles do not have numerous sources...they constitute simple calculations and the one or two sources they do have are both non-trivial and respectable as
239:
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, --
286:
after that AfD had been running for 7 days, but removed after half and hour (and before any comments had been made) because it was a silly idea to try making that into a mass AfD. Secondly, to further quote
264:
that this discussion is now effectively ignoring. This is simple calculation: the editor does not have to provide more source material to meet Wikis guidelines. This article is a valuable addition to
48:- all these calendars are not verifiable, are not the subject of any noteworthy academic debate, and have no support beyond that of their creators. - Richardcavell 01:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
104:
291:, "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." This article goes far beyond that. Thirdly,
194:
this article is well enough written and does demonstrate an example of what can be done with a 'simple' lunisolar calendar. The external links would also make a good addtion to
139:. If notable sources (eg newspapers) have covered this, fine. If it's just a couple of guys who've made something up in their spare time and bunged it on a website, delete. --
77:
72:
81:
64:
283:
261:
219:
151:
unless some kind of disinterested notice is shown. Not sure what the advantage of the proposal would be; it seems like an elaborate way to reinvent the
260:
I believe you are following guidelines to the letter and ignoring their intent: in this case, your concern has been addressed in the previous
226:
thereby removing valuable content from a good article, including all external links...In addition, the availability of sub-topics such as
17:
170:
336:
306:
277:
255:
243:
210:
177:
159:
143:
127:
295:
suggests that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources"; this article certainly hasn't. This article
251:: I fail to see how this has "non-trivial and respectable" sources. The one and only source quoted is the creator's webpage. --
68:
351:
36:
60:
52:
282:
Firstly, you are incorrect that there has ever been a previous AfD associated with this article. It was added to
199:
350:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
222:
Two articles have been successfully deleted thus far, and Pak21 has removed all mention of the topics from
174:
326:
clearly states that primary sources may not be used as the main or sole basis for an article, and
166:
331:
266:
231:
227:
203:
195:
187:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
327:
323:
288:
136:
270:
223:
152:
299:
120:
274:
240:
235:
207:
292:
116:
140:
98:
206:, but in any case there is no reason to delete this information. Kind regards, --
156:
303:
252:
124:
344:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
192:
The subject does not have numerous, non-trivial sources, but
135:
unverified, so currently is redolent of OR to the point of
218:
Pak21 has nominated many calandar reform topics as per
94:
90:
86:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
284:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Symmetry454
354:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
262:AfD discussion associated with this article
322:, "simple calculation" or not aside,
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
171:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (science)
165:This discussion has been added as a
115:: proposed calendar with no sign of
330:a publisher of original concepts.
198:. I'd probably also suggest that
24:
61:Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar
53:Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar
1:
178:22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
160:20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
144:09:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
128:09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
371:
273:articles. Kind regards, --
169:to the proposed guideline
337:18:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
307:08:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
278:23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
256:13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
244:13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
211:06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
200:Simple Lunisolar Calendar
347:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
289:WP:ATT#Reliable_sources
328:Knowledge (XXG) is not
302:, pure and simple. --
220:this AfD Discussion
267:Lunisolar calendar
232:Leap week calendar
228:Lunisolar calendar
204:Lunisolar calendar
196:Lunisolar calendar
188:Lunisolar calendar
335:
300:original research
180:
362:
349:
334:
164:
121:reliable sources
119:references from
102:
84:
34:
370:
369:
365:
364:
363:
361:
360:
359:
358:
352:deletion review
345:
271:Calendar reform
224:Calendar reform
175:trialsanderrors
157:Smerdis of Tlön
153:Jewish calendar
75:
59:
56:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
368:
366:
357:
356:
340:
339:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
236:Solar calendar
213:
181:
162:
146:
130:
109:
108:
55:
50:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
367:
355:
353:
348:
342:
341:
338:
333:
332:Seraphimblade
329:
325:
321:
318:
317:
308:
305:
301:
298:
294:
290:
285:
281:
280:
279:
276:
272:
268:
263:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
247:
246:
245:
242:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
214:
212:
209:
205:
202:be merged to
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
163:
161:
158:
154:
150:
147:
145:
142:
138:
134:
131:
129:
126:
122:
118:
114:
111:
110:
106:
100:
96:
92:
88:
83:
79:
74:
70:
66:
62:
58:
57:
54:
51:
49:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
346:
343:
319:
296:
248:
215:
191:
183:
148:
132:
112:
45:
43:
31:
28:
293:notability
117:verifiable
275:Greatwalk
241:Greatwalk
208:Greatwalk
167:test case
269:and the
234:, &
105:View log
249:Comment
216:Comment
141:Dweller
78:protect
73:history
324:WP:ATT
320:Delete
149:Delete
137:WP:NFT
133:Delete
113:Delete
82:delete
46:Delete
304:Pak21
253:Pak21
184:Merge
125:Pak21
99:views
91:watch
87:links
16:<
173:. ~
155:. -
95:logs
69:talk
65:edit
190:.
186:to
103:– (
297:is
230:,
123:--
97:|
93:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
71:|
67:|
107:)
101:)
63:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.