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. JohnCD (talk) 22:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese calendar, Lunar Nodes and history

[edit]

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

This article is a bunch of rubbish based on a series of events out of thousands that occurred either 30 or 60 years apart (important periods in the Chinese calendar). Appears to be a vanity article. Also appears to be written by a single user (sometimes logged in, sometimes not). Violates WP:IINFO. — TimL • talk 07:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we already have an article on Chinese calendar, this article only adds various random and unconnected historical events. W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crackpot at work. Certainly not using reliable sources, even if part of this is not OR. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless there is a suitable catch-all article on flaky numerology and history. Give them a pyramid inch....TheLongTone (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure POV and OR. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 18:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would even consider speedy tagging this as a hoax, but this will work just as well. Per Qwertyus. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though the ideas may not be believable, they come from sources that indicate its notability. This is definitely not a hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the concept of "notability" as it applies to Wikipedia. Just because other people have "noticed" that there are random events that have randomly occurred thirty and sixty years apart does not make them notable. — TimL • talk 19:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the concept that is notable, because of people writing about it. When they write whole books then the topic becomes notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the opinions of some, concepts do not become both notable and suitable for inclusion on wikipedia once someone writes one or more books about them. a quick glance at WP:GNG suggests that such in-depth coverage would satisfy the notability requirement, but it doesn't, because we would expect to see coverage from more than just one author on such a broad and far-reaching topic. We need reliable third-party sources or wikipedia isn't verifiable. Not long ago, an amateur historian by the name of Gavin Menzies wrote a book claiming that Ming Dynasty explorers from china landed in America in 1421. This got a ton of third-party coverage. But since none of his claims were valid historical arguments, none of them get to be repeated uncritically here on wikipedia. The article on Zheng He, the subject of his book, doesn't even mention him or his ideas, and nor should it, but Menzies himself gets his own article because of the overwhelming media response to his work. The same principles apply here. The ideas are quakery and the author and his books aren't particularly notable, so there's no reason to include them on wikipedia. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:54, 28 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.