Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terran computational calendar

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terran computational calendar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, no reliable sources in article, and I could not find any reliable sources with a Google source. Tone of the only source provided suggests this calendar was recently invented by one individual. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the redirect Terran calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any documentation of any such thing apart from the WWW site of no known authorship that this is a copy of, either. This is unverifiable outwith an anonymous self-published WWW site with no way to determine the author's reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Uncle G (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Every link is to the website of this contrivance, and there are no real mentions unless you count all the "July 15th of the Terran calendar" passages in innumerable Sci Fi works. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia and the author of this article. All your suppositions are correct, although I can assure you that much thought, research, documentation, trial & error, and precise programming has gone into the calendar's creation. What modifications or ommissions would you suggest to keep this on wikipedia? If the complete removal of this aricle is the unanimous decision of the wikipedia community (with the exception of the author), what kinds of things (reputation, reliable sources, etc.) must happen in order for it to become a worthy wikipedia page in the future? (Chimeraha (talk) 01:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia: Notability outlines the requirements for a topic to be worthy of an article. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest explains that even if a topic is notable, it would be inappropriate for the inventor of a calendar to write a Wikipedia article about it. Personally, I look to the recent confusion about whether 2000 or 2001 was the first year of the new millennium. Even for the most important calendar in international commerce, no one had the authority to come forward and definitely settle the matter. In view of that, I consider it impossible to replace the Gregorian calendar with some "improved" variant. I would not favor an article on a calendar proposal unless there an exceptional degree of interest in numerous reliable sources over a long period of time (~ 50 years). Jc3s5h (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I apologise for posting in the calendar reform article. I should have posted in the calendar reform talk page before making any modifications (though I didn't understand or know of the existance of talk pages before now). I believe the terran computational calendar is an excellent alternative in conjunction with (not replacement for) the current ISO_8601 standardized calendar and gregorian calendar and I believe that the article is not at all "a bad idea". This being said, I agree that this article is not inline with many wikipedia expectations, and therefore I'll withdraw my thoughts and questions on this matter over to Jc3s5h's talk page, the terran computational calendar talk page, and maybe eventually the calendar reform talk page. Chimeraha (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete A forum for discussing this calendar was recently established; the only two postings on it are by the calendar's designer, Chimera. It appears that this proposal does not even have sufficient following to be discussed as a notable fringe theory. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-published or original research unless reliable third-party sources can be found, per Jc3s5h.—Odysseus 1479 05:35, 31 December 2013 (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.