Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/February 12, 2003

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 12, 2003[edit]

-- Appleboy ^Talk 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC) should be merged in the proper WP event pages, I think this was just somebody wanting to bring extra attention to these events, PoV?[reply]

Keep Appleboy you are mistaken, day pages have been created for Jan-Aug 2003-2005 (with Sep-Dec to come soon), for various reasons (and are included in the "proper" WP pages). There is nothing special about this day. If you agree that it was a simple misunderstanding, it might make sense to withdraw this nomination, as the afd notice is making February 2003 look peculiar. Pcb21 Pete 09:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , looks very awkward with one day missing when other dates such as March 31, 2005 has an article on its own. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Terenceong. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the whole calander thing on wikipedia, whatever that's called. The Republican 01:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per Pcb21 --light darkness^(talk) 05:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: so we are making a precedent that all dates are sufficiently notable to merit an article -- we've made this decision with inhabited places and certain categories of roads, certain categories of schools, etc., so it is not unreasonable, just unstoppable. Carlossuarez46 21:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more of a redirect/merge, or however it should go, such as February_2006#22_February_2006 to fit with the naming scheme of how I have seen them being used. AfD was probably the wrong template to use --Appleboy ^Talk 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought there was a consensus to delete non-notable days. Grue 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I don't buy the argument, "But there's another article just like it..." Same thing for dates. Unless the date is inherently notable (and by judging this article, it isn't) then it should go. Ifnord 01:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These pages are transcluded to create February 2003, so deletion isn't really an option. Pcb21 Pete 10:26, 26 February 2006 (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.