Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 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 keep. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 1, 2003

The info on these pages is already well-suited on June 1 and 2003, and the page doesn't appear to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on dates (the only exception I've seen is for September 11, 2001, which was a much more notable event than the events listed in this page. Gadren 00:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Advert: If you are interested in this sort of article, please contribute to Wikipedia:WikiProject Current events to help make date-based pages work better on Wikipedia.

• Delete unnecessary duplication. Tyrenius 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per previous AfD discussions. This date page's information is tied to June 2003, not a duplication of it. (Note that the AfD banner that was put on this page is visible at that page as well.) -- Grev 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep unless you presume to delete all the other day and month articles between January 2000 and April 2006. — AKADriver ☎ 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep See July 7, 2005, May 5, 2003, November 29, 2004, etc., and above. However, I would argue for moving all to their respective articles after a certain amount of time. Morgan Wick 01:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep though these articles could really use some categories --Astrokey⁴⁴ 02:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are categories; this one should go into Category:Days in 2003. -- Grev 03:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per AKADriver. DarthVader 02:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect into June 2003. It appears the existence of pages like this is because this is how daily events were organized for a couple of years. If you click on June 2003 you'll notice it just includes templates for each day. This is no longer the procedure used (notice articles like January 1, 2006 and March 4, 2006 don't exist). This is a job for Wikipedia: WikiProject Current events which currently has, including myself, only 2 members. If any of you want to join that would be great as we could organize a plan for taking care of this problem. GT 05:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, let me clarify. As far as this AfD is concerned, my vote is Keep and let it be. In the future as part of an organized effort I would like to see it merged but that is beyond the scope of this AfD. GT 05:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Kept. It's like this for all 1096 days from January 1, 2003 up to and including December 31, 2005: all are transcluded. I've removed the AfD message from the page, which was of course also shown on January 2003 June 2003. If we want to get rid of these as separate articles, someone should do a subst on the month pages in which they are transcluded, fix any links and delete them. I don't know if it should be done (if it ain't broke ...) and if so who should decide so, but somehow I feel AfD is not the right forum. There are further January 12, 2006, which I believe should be merged, then January 24, 2006, January 25, 2006, and January 26, 2006, which are three redirects to January 2006 (why?), April 1, 2006, which is all about this year's Aprilfoolery, and finally April 20, 2006, which is a double redirect via April 2006 to Current events. That should be fixed but by someone else; I've gotta run. Someone please close. Lambiam^Talk 07:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Latest news: someone put the AfD message back. Please put it also on the 1095 other days :) Lambiam^Talk 07:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, since there are articles for individual dates since 01/01/2003, we should keep it. --Terence Ong 08:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete along with all the other day month year articles (i.e. referring to one specific day) as dupes M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 13:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • To the last two voters - it has since been acknowledged that there is no duplication. Please take the time to understand what you are voting on! Pcb21 Pete 14:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You would like to have the explicit link, not the implicit one. But the date is nothing special to deserve a special article. Than we'll have to discuss about every date, day by day? --MaNeMeBasat 15:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, I don't follow you. I think this day should be the same as all the others (i.e. kept and transcluded). Pcb21 Pete 15:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep This is a legit date in history

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.