Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/11/17/1858

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 Redirect to Julian day. It's an unlikely search term as far as I can see, but redirects are cheap (especially if nobody uses them). Yomangani^talk 22:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 11/17/1858

Unsourced orphan, seems like it would be something which could be in another article (somewhere). A very quick google reveals few sources, and I would even venture to say that the article is a dicdef (and WP:NOT a dictionary) Martinp23 22:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 22:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• It's already in Julian day, the obvious place for what are simply 2 sentences of information about a particular JD variant that in no way warrant an article all to themselves. Although the former doesn't seem all that useful, either redirect or delete according to taste. Uncle G 23:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect - to Julian Day in case someone just types it in. Dallben 01:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect. --- RockMFR 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: There are barely any articles linked to it and the article is small as it is. This does seem like something that could be linked to another article. Matthewbarnard 15:13, 24 November 2006 (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.