Bob99

Thank you for your contributions to International English. It looks way better now. Yes, the article is still a little OR-tainted, but I have a few sources up my sleeve. Hopefully, deletion is not going to be necessary. Thanks! ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 19:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article International English, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've put up the article for deletion, please be sure to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International English. Cheers! +Hexagon1 ^(t) 09:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

The AfD has been reopened, in case you missed it the last time. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

An editor has nominated International English, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International English and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bo can you please double-check your sources. My source (Lees-Milne) states that it was " Ash Wednesday, 18th February 1606". Were you in the right year? I have deleted "first day of Lent" pending your reply.

Amandajm (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

The source I used was actually my home made calendar spreadsheet (into which I typed the year 1606), which has proven to be reliable. However, for verification, Wolfram Alpha states that 8 February 1606 was a Wednesday (which means that 18 February 1606 must have been a Saturday) and that it was also 1 Adar 5366 on the Jewish calendar and 30 Ramadhan 1014 on the Islamic calendar, both of which indicate that the date coincided with a new moon:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8+feb+1606

Because Ash Wednesday is 46 days before Easter, and Easter is the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after 21 March, Ash Wednesday must fall on or shortly after a new moon. Therefore, if 8 February 1606 was both a Wednesday and a new moon, Ash Wednesday of that year cannot have been ten days later.

Is is possible that your source has a typographical error and that the correct date is 8 February 1606 rather than 18 February 1606? -- Bob (Bob99 (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC))Reply