Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of commemorative months

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 keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of commemorative months[edit]

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

This page is in serious disrepair. What is a "commemorative month" and if it is a list of the months surely it would just list the months, not the events within. It is seriously redlinked, which is contrary to the guidance at MOS:SAL; I am not sure that the events themselves, especially all are particularly notable. Sure the underlying illness/event may bbe, ut it seems that the events within a month may not. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being 'in disrepair' is not grounds for deletion. Many, probably most, of the redlinks could be fixed by redirecting them to notable charities and organizations that sponsor them, or to articles on the underlying disease or issue. Lists like this serve an indexing function that the search feature does not: how else are you going to learn that March is simultaneously Women's History Month, Greek-American Heritage Month, Endometriosis Awareness Month, and Self-Harm Awareness Month? (I suspect that a surfeit of "awareness" campaigns is one cause of self-harm, myself.) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. I'm all for Self-Harm Awareness Month if its purpose is to make people aware that "to self-harm" is not a verb. It makes me cringe when I hear or read about people who "self-harm" rather than harm themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs better sourcing, but that's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article may need cleanup, but it is still notable. JDDJS (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need work, as noted by several above, but I believe this list is both notable and useful and should be kept. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2012 (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.