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 - 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)

Meyer-Palmen Solilunar 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 09:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverified, so currently is redolent of OR to the point of WP:NFT. 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. --Dweller 09:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 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 Jewish calendar. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lunisolar calendar. The subject does not have numerous, non-trivial sources, but 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 Lunisolar calendar. I'd probably also suggest that Simple Lunisolar Calendar be merged to Lunisolar calendar, but in any case there is no reason to delete this information. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 06:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 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. I have withdrawn my observation that these articles do not have numerous sources...they constitute simple calculations and the one or two sources they do have are both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 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 13:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fail to see how this has "non-trivial and respectable" sources. The one and only source quoted is the creator's webpage. --Pak21 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you are following guidelines to the letter and ignoring their intent: in this case, your concern has been addressed in the previous AfD discussion associated with this article 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 Lunisolar calendar and the Calendar reform articles. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly, you are incorrect that there has ever been a previous AfD associated with this article. It was added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symmetry454 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 WP:ATT#Reliable_sources, "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, notability suggests that "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources"; this article certainly hasn't. This article is original research, pure and simple. --Pak21 08:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, "simple calculation" or not aside, WP:ATT clearly states that primary sources may not be used as the main or sole basis for an article, and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original concepts. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:28, 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.