Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical anniversaries

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. The outcome here is "keep and do something", likely. What exactly is to be done (leave as it is, move to different space, restructure) can be discussed on the talkpage. Tone 14:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical anniversaries[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article is not a list of historical anniversaries, but rather is merely a duplication of Template:Months. Further, "historical anniversaries" is redundant, since an anniversary necessarily refers to something in the past. No need for this "list" to exist. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 16:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. List serves no useful purpose and simply replicates the template used in all the DOY articles. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This isn't a list of anything. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck my recommendation because this page is linked from the main page, which I hadn't realized when this AfD started, but I'm now recommending a redirect or move because this page still isn't a list of anniversaries. Basically, consider this as a recommendation for "something other than keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this page is linked on the Main Page, and that seems to be the only real purpose of the page - keeping casual readers out of template space. I've got no opinion on whether that's good enough of a reason per WP:CLT OR WP:IAR to keep this "article", but the context should be considered. I also note that there has been discussion in the past (on the article talk page) to rename the page to something like Calendar of anniversaries. ansh.666 19:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps just a semantic quibble, but I'd note this isn't a "calendar of anniversaries" either, as it is merely a set of links to articles about days, each of which also include a list of notable events that occured on that day. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:06, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the other people who think this should be deleted. It's not really a list of anniversaries like it claims and I don't think renaming it to "calendar of anniversaries" would work either for the reason given by ZimZalaBim. Although, I would semantically quibble with their semantic quibble that the articles it links to aren't lists of "notable" events either. Since 99% of the articles I saw linked in the articles are just cherry picked birthday for random people etc etc. Maybe someone is notable enough for an article, but that doesn't mean everything about them including their birthday is. Which is all the more reason to delete this. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really a list, just a copy of a calendar.Copyrightpower1337 (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP WP:SKCRIT#6 The page/image is currently linked from the Main Page. In such cases, please wait until the link is no longer on the Main Page before nominating. If the problem is urgent, consensus should be gained at WP:ERRORS to remove the link before nominating for deletion. There should be a discussion about removing the link from the main page first. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link will be removed if this results in it being deleted won't it? So isn't this that kind of discussion? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic, it could never be deleted as it is always on the main page. That criteria is meant so that articles at DYK/ITN can't be nominated for the day(s) that they're on front page. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has 279,923 views in a single year. Why would so many people be coming here? Someone must find it useful. It was created on October 2001 and template:months created a few years later‎. Does perhaps the main page needs to link to an article and not a template, so it has value? Dream Focus 05:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that the current "Archive" link on the mainpage provides better context and a more usable calendar to other dates, than this list. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete viewed a lot solely because it's on front page, but it doesn't serve the purpose people would expect it to. A list of historical anniversaries should be a list and not a misplaced template. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move outside of article space to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Calendar. This isn't really an article and doesn't belong in main space, but it does serve a reasonable navigational function for the "On this day" section of the main page. As such, I also don't think we shouldn't be overlooking SKCRIT #6 as pointed out by power quite so easily. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 11:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. The list is obviously aiding our readers: since July 2015 the page has 1,963,310 views. Our criteria for lists include lists which provide information or navigation. We should keep a list which serves readers per our guideline. Lightburst (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per the already mentioned WP:SKCRIT#6. Deleting this article will create a redlink on the main page, which we definitely don't want. If we wish to move it or reformat it, fair enough, but I don't feel this is the best forum to consider those options.--CSJJ104 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty routine that deleting articles creates red links and it's something that is pretty easily dealt with. So, that seems like an extremely weak, nonsensical reason to keep the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree that a redlink is easily fixable. The existing archive link already provides a lot better context than a misleading link to "historical anniversaries" which actually doesn't link to a page with anniversaries. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is more that the redlink would then need to be removed or changed, but I do not feel that this should happen without a discussion of the options. There must be a reason why a link was provided from the main page to begin with, and there might still be a desire in the community to maintain this in one form or another. My second concern would be that the Template:SelAnnivFooter is protected, and we would need to ensure there was an administrator ready to make this change, complicating the fix of the link in this instance.--CSJJ104 (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no "historical anniversaries" listed. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has history going back two decades; if it is decided the page should be removed can this history at least be kept? I aree with Deacon Vorbis's move proposal. Nixinova T C 07:44, 15 September 2020
Keep and convert to a list of lists page, possibly revert it back to the 21:00, 24 October 2006 version, and if necessary cleanup and rename it. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates allows for the co-existence of both list pages and navigation templates. At the time, there was no list of lists main article for Category:Days of the year. One of the issues we have is that Template:Months and all other navigation boxes are disabled on Mobile version of Wikipedia, so it would be nice if mobile users would have some accessible page too of all these day pages. Something like this. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have altered the page since this AFD began.[1] I have removed {{months}} and added a table similar to what the page was back in 2006.[2] The page could now be easily repurposed and moved to something like List of anniversaries or List of days of the year. Again, we should keep the page history on grounds of WP:CLN, which allows a category, a list page, and a navigation template that present the same content and links to co-exist. Navigation boxes like {{months}} cannot be used on the mobile versions of Wikipedia, and category pages like Category:Days of the year cannot display the links in a single table. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or repurpose to List of anniversaries. There's all notable anniversaries are historical. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's linked to/from the Main Page, so the discussion should be held there and on other wide(r) community area talk pages before coming to AfD. I can see why a debate has to be had, and also why AfD is perhaps too narrow. There is an important article and resource here and deletion seems too strong (for now). doktorb _words^deeds 22:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful navigation page for a topic which is way too big for one page, furthermore the naming issue is an easy fix: just move the page to a better name, per WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Jayron 32 15:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per several above, including Lightburst. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 19 September 2020 (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.