Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Season 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 redirect to Isaac Asimov#Other writings. The arguments for deletion far outweigh the arguments for retention given. In this case, lack of independent coverage and none provided in so that notability can be established, which have not been adequately addressed by those favoring retention. Opting for a redirection to preserve edit history. –MuZemike 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

World Season Calendar

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

This proposal for calendar reform is not notable (WP:N) for lack of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. It is briefly described at the end of Isaac Asimov#Other writings, but a redirect there has been reverted, hence this nomination. Sandstein 12:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to substantiate these claims. SimpsonDG (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plainly not notable. I'd certainly support a redirect. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable calendar reform concept published by a well-known author in an off-line work. This Deletionist attempt (after repeated, aggressive page-blanking attempts) is unwarranted, but typical of the war against content in general, and against Calendar reform specifically. Please note that "Notability" as defined on WP does not mean "only notable ONLINE citations." In 1973, his publication of this calendar concept, and it's notability, obviously occurred offline. WP:N (General Notability Guideline) states: "Sources are not required to be available online". This is something that many Wikipedian Deletionists often ignore. Nhprman 14:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect even "Inclusionists" recognize that a primary source -- for example, a book published by the person who invented the calendar -- is not valid for demonstrating notability, offline or online. There is no "war against content" happening here, and the "aggressive page blanking" you are referring to is, as far as I can tell from the article's history, an attempt by the admin who nominated this AfD to save the topic by converting it to a Redirect. If you can find reliable, significant coverage of this calendar that was not written by the calendar's inventor, by all means add it to the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book does indeed count as a primary source. And when the unjustified war on off-line content ends - including the rather extreme interpretation of "notability" (it's never meant to mean "online notoriety") - the strong opposition to it I'm demonstrating will, too. Thanks. Nhprman 15:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This online/offline distinction you're drawing has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. That Asmiov's book is an "offline" source is not the issue. It's that it's Asimov's book. A primary source cannot be used to demonstrate notability. Read the guidelines. It's clear you don't know what "primary" means in this case because if you agree that the book is a "primary" source, you are agreeing that the book cannot be used to demonstrate notability. A source must be independent of the topic at hand -- that is, a source cannot be a "primary" source. It must be "secondary." Very clearly, Isaac Asimov writing about his own calendar proposal is not "independent of the topic at hand." So, again, if you can find secondary sources -- some other reliable source writing about Asimov's calendar proposal in a significant way -- by all means add it to the article and I will happily change my vote. This is not about online vs. offline content, and I don't know why you think it is. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 15:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say this because this is usually the standard line from deletionists, and frankly, if I cannot go right now and find *links* to these sources, they will be assumed to have never existed, so it clearly is an issue of online notoriety and the production of ONLINE news sources that establish this version of "notability" for some people, though I wouldn't presume to say this applies to you. Nhprman 20:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Isaac Asimov#Other writings as possible search term. No third party reliable sources to demonstrate that this is a notable topic. -Atmoz (talk) 23:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article should clearly be kept. The only justification for deleting it is because of a pedantic adherence by Deletionists to their strict interpretation of Wikipedia's rules. How about a little common sense here? The intent of the notability rule is to prevent the introduction of trivial or frivolous topics, such as an article on some high school kid in Montana who's considered "cool" by his friends. Should such an article be deleted? Of course it should -- it's of no general interest. But what is gained by deleting a general-interest article on a calendar reform proposed by a well-known author? This is clearly not a frivolous topic; nothing is gained by the article's deletion, and significant content is lost. Also, as a more of a common-sense indication of notability, I would point to the fact that a number of people have considered this article sufficiently notable to justify taking the time and effort to translate it into three other languages for other-language editions of Wikipedia. I have also found a number of external Web sites (ignoring content farms) that link to the article, whose links would be broken if the article were deleted. I see nothing whatsoever to be gained by the deletion of this article. SimpsonDG (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per SimpsonDG above. The content is clearly encyclopaedic, and the article itself serves to support Calendar_reform#Specific_proposals. The proposal is mentioned at Asimov's article but very briefly, and it is not clear how the proposal works. Content could be merged, but that would just cause unnecessary clutter in a section best served for biographical purposes - frankieMR (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These "keep" opinions do not address the core policy requirement of WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Per WP:BURDEN, it is the responsibility of those who whish to retain the article to supply such sources. Because nobody so far has named reliable third-party sources (whether offline or online) that cover this calendar reform proposal, policy requires that it is deleted. Sandstein 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise you didn't address the point being made, which is that the notability guidelines are meant to keep the project from running astray as consequence of unattended inclusion of frivolous content. The guideline template itself notes that it is an accepted standard that we are expected to follow, but common sense is advised and occasional exceptions are foreseen. If this was my calendar proposal being argued then notability would definitely go against it. Without going that far, if this was Ann Coulter's calendar proposal then it would also come down to the particular notability of the proposal, since she is known and regarded in a separate field of knowledge. Asimov on the other hand was and still is a respected figure of the scientific community, and the proposal is a significant addition to the subject of calendar reform proposals (as opposed to the subject of Issac Asimov himself, for whom a brief mention of the proposal does suffice). I'm not saying that the proposal inherits notability from Asimov, what I'm saying is that the content is relevant to the encyclopaedia for its scholar and even general purpose value, while also being verifiable and discriminate - frankieMR (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage about this in reliable sources to establish this proposal as a notable calendar reform proposal. Not everything that a notable person does is notable. With respect to Asimov being a respected figure in the scientific community implying that the proposal should thus be documented here in Wikipedia, I am not able to find any scientific discussion of this taking this as a serious proposal. -- Whpq (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent treatment of this topic is cited in the article, a Google Books search turns up no references at all, and the failure of the "keep" proponents here to cite any secondary sources suggests that such sources simply do not exist. Fails the GNG. Deor (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, either to Isaac Asimov#Other writings or to Calendar reform#Proposals; it is already covered in both places. This proposal of his has never been seriously discussed or considered by anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2011 (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.