Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/420-year cycle

:{{la|420-year cycle}} ([{{fullurl:420-year cycle|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/420-year cycle}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability; google web, news, and book searches aren't coming up with reliable, independent sources showing notability of this concept. Prod contested by article's author without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Beaten to the nomination! I was just about to hit "save". ☺ Here's my nomination rationale, copied and pasted from another tab:

  This is unverifiable. I am unable to find any source at all that documents a 420-year cycle supposedly ending/beginning in 1946. The article cites no sources at all, of course, and the prose justifies its existence as "automatically" following from the existence of another cycle. That article, septenary cycle, was also created by the same editor who created this article, and I cannot find sources confirming that subject's existence, either. The only documented septenary cycle that I can find is a septenary cycle of days, not years. We know it under its more common name: the seven-day week (c.f. week-day names#Roman Gods). "Automatically following" from another unverifiable article does not make this article any the more verifiable. Uncle G (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Do not delete. High-quality references have been added to the article on the septenary cycle. Systemizer (talk) 10:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• No, they have not been. You've added links to an unsourced article on the German Wikipedia about a 100-year (not 7-year) calendar (which, being Wikipedia itself, isn't a source at all, let alone a "high quality" one), links to another wiki discussing that same calendar, and a mis-mash of information from unrelated subjects, such as Shmita. By just collecting together small facets of clearly unrelated topics, you're only making the process of original synthesis yet more apparent.

  One irony here is that whilst you are making your own synthesis of unrelated topics into a non-topic that doesn't exist anywhere outside of your own invention, we are lacking a decent article on a real topic: Mauritius Knauer. Your efforts could be far more productively directed. Uncle G (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• The calendar is not "100-year." It is "eternal" ("perpetuum"): "Calendarium oeconomicum practicum perpetuum." And the seven-year cycle is given in a table on this page [http://kalender.rohrmann.com/]. This page is simply an electronic version of the XVII century book, so it is not "Wikipedia itself."--Systemizer (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Your claims are belied by your own edits. The "sources" that you claimed to have linked to most definitely are about a 100-year calendar. The "source" that you added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Septennial_cycle&diff=prev&oldid=268891719 this edit] not only is most definitely the German Wikipedia, as can be seen from the domain name in the URL, but is about "Der Hundertjährige Kalende", which is German for "The Hundred Year Calendar". The "source" that you added in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Septennial_cycle&diff=prev&oldid=268890935 this edit] is about a 100-year calendar. It says so on its main page, at least nine times. (And, in what I can only surmise is an attempt on the part of its author to drive the point home with a sledgehammer so that even the terminally thick will get it, it repeats it a further three times in the page title.) Uncle G (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• The original name of the book is "Calendarium oeconomicum practicum perpetuum." Perpetuum. Perpetuum. Perpetuum. Got it? Read the book itself. The main table of years is CYCLIC, i.e., PERPETUALLY RECURRENT. "Hundertjähriger Kalender, unrichtige Bezeichnung für das »Calendarium oeconomicum practicum perpetuum« des Abtes Mauritius Knauer." [http://www.brockhaus.de/wissen/hundertj%C3%A4hriger%20kalender] Systemizer (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I couldn't find anything about via Google, either. -Zeus- 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)
• Delete as unverifiable. Edward321 (talk) 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable! Madman (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, without context it is gibberish. WillOakland (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - This is an original synthesis of material from European and Chinese astrology. Probably something made up one day. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• European and Chinese astrological signatures are not mutually exclusive. The Chinese 12-year cycle is just a modified 12-sign cycle (Snake ~ Scorpion; Horse ~ Sagittarius; Goat ~ Capricorn). There is no need to "synthesise" them—they have always belonged to the same paradigm. Is drawing an analogy between the Goat and Capricorn an "original synthesis?" :) Systemizer (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I find your anthropology questionable. But the short answer is, yes, drawing that analogy is original research, especially in a cross-cultural context like this. (It's not so controversial to suggest that Capricorn was linked with goats by the Greeks, but you're advancing a specific thesis about the origins of eastern astrology.) If you can't find a reliable published source to support your claims (including but not limited to the existence of the 420-year cycle and the origins of the Chinese zodiac), then they're not verifiable. This isn't difficult. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• The existence of the 420 signature combinations automatically follows from the existence of the 7 European and the 60 Chinese signatures. 7 × 60 = 420. It is plain arithmetic and does not need any verification. Systemizer (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Plain arithmetic tells us that 7x60=420. It doesn't tell us that this novel synthesis of Chinese and western astrology has any existence outside the page now under consideration. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• You have both a 12-year natal signature and a 7-year natal signature. And hopefully, you exist outside the page now under consideration. Does it need a verification? Systemizer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Whether I have those things is not objectively verifiable. It's your opinion as a believer in certain forms of astrology that I do, but others may well disagree. You need sources for your claims; making deductions, even ones you think are obvious, is original research. Please stop missing the point. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Calendars are notional. For example, you are born in a certain year of the Gregorian calendar, whether you believe in it or not. In the Chinese calendar, the year of your birth will have another signature, regardless of your beliefs (for example, instead of "the year of 1976" it will be signified as "a year of the Fiery Dragon"). Does it still need a hard proof? LOL Systemizer (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• I don't 'need a hard proof', but this article will need reliable sources if it's to survive. Please stop making this personal, and address the problems with the article. Thank you. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Somebody's bored at work. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The creator has failed to mention the alignment of the Great Pyramid. Seriously, I found 9 ghits including the article and this discussion. The only ones non-blog /non-forum seemed to refer to a 'postulated' 420 year cycle to do with sun spots. There are many cycles associated with sun spots. They are irrelevant to astrology. The argument above that calendars are notional is valid. Unfortunately, the assignment of animals and other things in astrology is also notional. There is no Lion in the sky. There is an apparent group of stars that someone decided looked like a lion - the stars are in fact unrelated to each other. They are at different distances from the Earth, and have no connection together other than someone's fancy. On the whole, I regard the article as OR or hoax. Peridon (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2009 (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.