Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rectified Hebrew 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 or merge to Hebrew calendar (Calendar reform would be okay too). —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-19 11:54Z

[edit] Rectified Hebrew calendar

Rectified Hebrew calendar (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have tried using Prod, but it was deleted. My contention is that this particular calendar is just one man's opinion and is not notable. The idea that there are faults with the Hebrew calendar is certainly notable, and is or should be discussed in Hebrew calendar. The different proposal to improve the calendar, made decades ago by Dr. Feldman, may be notable, but that has no bearing on whether this proposal is notable.--R613vlu 12:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: Sorry about deleting Prod, the mistake of an inexperienced Wikipedia editor. If Feldman's proposal "may be notable" (keeping in mind that he published it on a single page out of 239 in 1931 with hardly any arithmetic to back up his proposal), then why wouldn't a demonstrably superior reform that is comprehensively documented not be at least as "notable"? The Wikipedia Hebrew calendar entry is long enough, and most people who go there would not be interested in any reform proposal, nevertheless links from there to reform proposals would be appropriate. Kalendis 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: non-verifiable --Pak21 14:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: On non-verifiable: A calendar reform surely should be regard as in a special category with regard to verifiability, as it is essentially a calculation algorithm for determining the labelling of chronological dates. The arithmetic of the Rectified Hebrew calendar is fully documented in the public domain, so anybody can use the published formulae to verify its performance against their preferred trusted source of astronomical moments. -- Kalendis 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is the second !vote by Kalendis --Pak21 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Are there others? We might move this to Hebrew calendar reform if there are. —Ashley Y 20:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: On non-notable: the traditional Hebrew calendar does have its problems and this reform proposal is probably the best I've seen. On non-verifiable or original research: the article has references to a detailed website with further references. The proposal has been discussed repeatedly in a specialized forum. Tom Peters 20:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability: your personal views on the quality of this are irrelevant.

Waddayamean?? This is a vote, by definition personal, so mine is relevant. How do you decide notability? Tom Peters 13:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Please see WP:ILIKEIT. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability: which reliable source has this information been published in? --Pak21 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

As many others I consider the interpretation of the Wikipolicy that only printed matter can be reliable, ludicrous in the Internet age. And in this case, mathematics and algorithms are ALWAYS verifiable and don't need a prophet to proclaim their veracity. Tom Peters 13:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a discussion, not a vote.

Interesting. Why then does everybody in this and other deletion sections say "keep" or "delete"? (yes I now the end result is not just a tally of the "keeps" or "deletes"). And if this is a discussion then why is my expressed opinion irrelevant? - TP

Keep or delete (or merge or whatever) is a recommendation for what should happen to the article, not a vote. Please read WP:AFD; Your personal opinion on whether a proposal is any good or not is irrelevant because Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not editor's personal opinions. --Pak21 08:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, please re-read the non-negotiable policy on verifiability: it doesn't matter if something is true. If it isn't verified, it has no place on Wikipedia.

So even a mathematical derivation is considered "not verified"? What weird universe does this come from??? - TP

The Wikipedia universe. A question for you: is Andrew Wiles's proof of Fermat's Last Theorem is correct or not? Your argument would appear to be saying "it's a mathematical derivation, therefore it's automatically verified". I also ask you to consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Thirdly, the reliable sources guideline, while not a policy, is still something which has broad consensus amongst Wikipedia editors; it is possible that the closing administrator will discount any arguments which ignore it without good reason. --Pak21 13:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: On non-notable: Remy Landau, an expert on the traditional Hebrew calendar with an extensive web site devoted to that at <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/> had high praise for the Rectified Hebrew calendar, see: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1584/luachmail.html#071 -- Kalendis 00:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is the third !vote by Kalendis --Pak21 08:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sorry, my inexperience in how this works. -- Kalendis 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Apparently original research, no reliable sources. Author removed name of person primarily identified with idea, leaving the article even more poorly sourced than before. Αργυριου (talk) 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So in summary, the only evidence that Kalendis can bring is a personal web site created by Dr. Irv Bromberg (named as the originator in earler versions of the article), who by coincidence also uses the name Kalendis,[1] and Remy Landau's courteous reply to a message from Irv Bromberg to view his site. When I said that Dr. Feldman's proposal may be notable, I meant that I don't know whether it is or not. As it is in a published and well-regarded book, I think it is, but that has no bearing on the notability of this different proposal.--R613vlu 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  13:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V and WP:N. Wikipedia only publishes articles on topics that are notable. Articles have to be notable because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia whose job is to summarize ideas that have already been published and accepted elsewhere, not to publish new ideas that have never been publicly tested. Notability means, at a minimum, that they have been published in multiple reliable sources subject to peer review, so a Wikipedia editor doesn't have to personally vouch for a statement or the credentials of a person endorsing it. This simply hasn't been done here. It doesn't matter whether proponents can convince me (or anyone else here) that the proposal has mathematical or religious merit. What has to happen is it has to be shown that these ideas have already been disseminated elsewhere and received substantial outside comment. Without this, an article on the subject doesn't belong here. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Comment It's worth noting that the Hebrew calendar has religious as well as mathematical implications. The claim that such a proposal can be considered solely as a piece of mathematics strikes me as evidence of a lack of familiarity with the subject-matter's context. This tends to give me additional doubt that it actually ever has received serious external consideration or comment. --Shirahadasha 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with Hebrew calendar. Kolindigo 13:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I believe that I could come up with a simpler proposal that is at least as accurate given the uncertainty in predicting the length of the day. Would that entitle me to write an article about it on Wikipedia?--Holdenhurst 23:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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.