Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 1, 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 speedy keep - see below. — sjorford (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] January 1, 2003, January 2, 2003, et al.

This information is already covered in January 2003. There are presumably hundreds of other articles that fall under this rationale for deletion since there are many days between 2003 and 2005 that have separate articles. joturner 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. joturner 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• When Joturner nominated these articles for deletion, the AfD notice showed up on January 2003. Somehow (I don't know how), these pages are interconnected. If the day articles can be deleted without interfering with the month article, then delete them. Otherwise, keep them. -- Grev 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per Lightdarkness. Royboycrashfan 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Recently, an admin created all of the individual pages, for upkeep on the page linked to by Grev, there was recently another afd regarding this, and IIRC, it's result was Keep. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here is a link to the previous discussion regarding February 12, 2003. The closing admin decided no concensus, however the admin who created the pages states that deletion of them would cause errors in the current month pages. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• I'm closing this as a speedy keep, as there is obviously some confusion about these pages. They are not duplicates of the month pages, they are the month pages. Several months (although not yet all) from the last few years have been split up into separate pages for each day, which are now included as templates on the month pages - see the source code for January 2003 for example. So this is not a deletion issue - possibly there could be a debate about whether the month pages should be constructed in this way, but that's a matter for general discussion on talk pages, not AFD. — sjorford (talk) 11:05, 3 March 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.