Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 1

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 per WP:SNOW.. Smashville^talk 15:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

per explicit violation of WP:NOT. These are just days in a year, any year. These articles appear to be by their very nature trivial and are, without exception, indiscriminate collections of information about coincidental events "on this day in history". Each also contains a list of births and deaths of people with otherwise no connection with each other. Most notable individuals and events already have their own articles, and I suggest few would be motivated to find out what else happened (hypothetically) on the day of the Lindbergh kidnapping, or on the day Roger Daltry was born. This series of articles is logically the least likely route for individuals to search for an article except to fulfil WP:INTERESTING, or to earn Greg's Sewer cover barnstar. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with what Ohconfucius wrote above. Well said. I would suggest though, that these articles not be truly “deleted,” but temporarily placed in non-article space so they may be picked through for data to use for expanding articles like August 2003 or August 1, 2003. I think it was a colossal violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) to have created ‘on this date throughout history’ articles in the first place as they are nothing more than beyond-worthless trivia and far too few readers take the time to wade (muck) through them. And when you consider the fact that their contents were virtually never germane to the article from which they were linked, it’s doubly wrong that editors linked to them for so long. Greg L (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is this a ~~joke~~ nomination? Why is March selected for deletion rather than, say, April? A recurring date is notable. I think it would be very easy to imagine someone searching for information about a date - for example, a disc jockey searching for 'On this day...' information to fill his breakfast radio show, or a personal assistant trying to figure out whether a particular date would be suitable to hold a meeting (since it may be a holiday for certain religions). It is well documented that acts of civil disobedience and terrorism are more likely to occur on the anniversaries of previous such acts, and someone in security or policing might keep track of such dates. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No joke. April? Good idea; those too. Why? Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Clearly, “March 3 - Revolt attempt of Generals José Gonzalo Escobar and Jesús María Aguirre fails in Mexico” and “The American Telephone and Telegraph Company is incorporated in New York” are as random a collection as I can imagine. This information needs to be better organized, and that can be done by moving all that content to articles like August 2003 and August 1, 2003. Greg L (talk)

I should have said 'good faith' instead of 'joke' - see below. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is one strange place, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003 is considered as a good-faith proposal (and something I voted against), but putting in my 2¢ here is seen has heresy. What? Do you want me to go stand in line at the dunking pond now? Good grief. Greg L (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Because days of the year are inherently notable; insofar as the material van be verified; because it would redlink access dates on citation templates (e.g., the "cite paper" template); and per Richard Cavell. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No joke. Failing WP:N is not the grounds I cite for deletion, but the whole list of total coincidences which each of these lists represent. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No such massive deletion drive should be undertaken without some sort of broad consensus in centralized discussion. I personally find these date articles highly useful. --Soman (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you mean WP:USEFUL? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually useful. As in, being actually used.

Page views for selected dates for October 2008

March 1 - 12,808
March 2 - 11,401
March 5 - 11,610
March 8 - 10,040
March 10 - 12,631
March 15 - 12,312
March 17 - 12,610
March 20 - 12,261
March 30 - 11,244

Page views for March 5, by month

January 2008 - 14,351
February 2008 - 16,961
March 2008 - 65,252
April 2008 - 17,218
May 2008 - 16,930
June 2008 - 15,468
July 2008 - 5,067 (only half the month seems to be available)
August 2008 - 14,253
September 2008 - 12,035
October 2008 - 11,610

So for the first ten months of 2008, at least 190,000 page-views for March 5, not counting the few thousand redirects from '5 March', 'March 05', etc., just for one page. Certainly more objectively useful than Australian Research Council, Julian Vereker, Public Housing Estates on Tsing Yi Island or even Mass versus weight. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - is this nomination in good faith? We have a whole WikiProject dedicated to these articles, and if the nominator wants these articles to be deleted, the discussion really ought to start there. I appreciate that Greg L and Ohconfucius take exception to these articles, but they need to obtain consensus if they want wikipedia to delete them. Taking this to AfD does not seem to be an act of consensus-building, but rather an attempt to undermine the status quo, against existing consensus. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about the WikiProject. I've also notified WP:TIME. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Absolutely! What is bad faith about it - facts linked by coincidences constitute indiscriminate information? If anyone can demonstrate that they are not coincidences, I'll withdraw the nom. In the meantime, perhaps some among you believe my proposal will be quoshed by your canvassing and save me the trouble of withdrawing, fine. Let me point out that consensus is everywhere, and AfD is as valid and common a place for seeking it. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what’s going on here? Canvassing? So we get a quick gang-rape in the showers? Let’s give this some time and see how the voting goes. Greg L (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per other commenters; also note that these are not indiscriminate, as (among other things) people, events, etc. that happen on 364/365 or 365/366 of the year aren't supposed to be listed on any one of these pages. Also consider that newspapers, radio stations, etc. often have a "this day in history" column or notice: as these pages don't violate core policies, and as having something of this sort is often seen, it would be appropriate to ignore rules such as the trivia bit noted above, even if we admit (which I don't) the applicability of that argument here. By the way, this isn't a joke: these two users already discussed such a thing at this currently-running AFD. Nyttend (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're clutching at straws if you cite WP:IAR against WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA Ohconfucius (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's merely pointing out that if you choose to ignore the argument he's given--which you're implicitly doing--WP:IAR does, indeed, trump the other bits of alphabet-soup you've dredged up. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think it's intended to be a joke - I know that the two users are engaging in a campaign to get rid of these date articles - but I disagree with how they're going about it. The dates that have been nominated seem to have been chosen indiscriminately. We just alerted the appropriate WikiProjects; the two campaigners did not, despite being aware of their existence. And if the users did not reasonably expect this AfD to pass, then this is a case of WP:POINT. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess: this is part of User:Greg L's War on Linking Dates? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? It’s a nomination for deletion (just like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003) and I seconded the motion and have stated what I truly believe. So shoot me. If there is no consensus for this, then there is no consensus. Jeez. Greg L (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question, it is linked to this. Greg L (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the 'ideal' group of articles to nominate for deletion in batch, and I true that I could have done March or January, so yes, the choice was initially arbitrary. I am no stranger to mass deletions and have succeeded in same before (for example here and here). If this succeeds, then the remainder will be tackled in good time. For all this screaming of blue murder, there is still no coherent argument why this series needs to be kept, as projects cannot live outside policy. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several, but you've chosen to ignore them. You've certainly pointedly ignored the rebuttals to your rather vague rationales.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. What the hell? These serve standard almanac-like functions of grouping events--such as historic events, births, and deaths--under a obvious single criterion, namely the date. I'd suggest that reasons for nomination are what count as trivial--what, exactly, are those unnamed 'explicit violations of WP:NOT' the nomination refers to?--and this kind of mass nomination qualifies as disruption to prove some kind of point. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Every single one of these artilces are linked from the main page for a day every year!!! We need more people working on them not them being deleted.
Speedy keep per WP:POINT. --Carnildo (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having a point is not the same as trying to make a point. It's a sincere nomination, so please try and defend the series of articles on its own merits. ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Precisely. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003 is a good-faith nomination and so is this one. Please desist with the accusations of bad faith and stick to making arguments that persuade others to your way of thinking; you may well need it as other editors come here to register their votes. These lists of random, disconnected trivia are going to need a lot of good arguments to defend them because they don’t have much in the way of socially redeeming value that I can see. The information they contain should be organized into articles like August 2003 or August 1, 2003.
Right now, we have “July 20, 80,000 BC: Man invents fire” and “July 20, 1969 AD: Man sets foot on the Moon.” They have no connection whatsoever other than the date. Greg L (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the absurdity of the given reasons, the attempting at making a major and drastic attempt to eliminate several hundred pages, and the strong suspicion that this is all part of that peculiar crusade to eliminate any and all date linking on Wikipedia--those crusaders seem well represented here--then yes, I'd say implying bad-faith is not only accurate, but warranted. And you'll have to do better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'd also advise you use real examples instead of absurd ones made up from whole cloth. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing WP:POINT is equivalent to citing a bad-faith nomination, as the nom is presumably being disruptive. I also disagree with that. MuZemike (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates are inherently notable, and notable things happen to happen on these notable dates; sometimes these notable things even add to these dates' notability. That's a lot of notability. So what if these notable dates are the only things that "connect" the notable events thereon? Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep; the proper methodology is an MfD on Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year (which, by the way, wasn't informed by the nominator.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My bad. Does that invalidate the nomination? Let's have arguments about the merits of the articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure that Rubin is correct in that assertion. The WP-wide practice trumps a WikiProject nicety. Tony (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not when the WikiProject is solely about maintaining those articles. But I could be wrong. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment walled garden is a term which is coming to mind. Only difference is that these are all overlinked from other articles. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I guess being mandated by an established WikiProject is not a speedy criterion. I'd think it should be, but it's not (at least at present). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that this degree of conflict with an established WikiProject (already built up through consensus) should be grounds for a speedy keep. The success of this AfD would essentially destroy the WikiProject, and it strikes me as ~~uncivil~~ (c'mon, WP:AGF) outrageous to start, or at least not to withdraw the nomination for, such an AfD without prior discussion with the WikiProject (given that the nominator is aware of the project's existence). Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the term 'walled garden' coming to mind, since it's not the least bit applicable? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into March. Let's note that these articles are not merely random lists of unrelated events; I'm all for that part to be removed (but I've notified Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries as the people there may be interested), and if there's little left after that, then I'm all for merging too. -- Jao (talk) 08:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — (edit conflict) unless bad faith in the nomination can be confirmed or that anything establishing a consensus that days of the month are inherently notable, the criteria for speedy keep does not apply. MuZemike (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every single person on this planet has to deal with birth, death, food, water, oxygen, and (except for some people with unfortunately short lives) March 1. Dates of the year are things that everyone, everywhere confronts every year of their lives. Dates are things that people more than a few years old recognize by name. Each one of them has occurred thousands of times in recorded history. They are an integral part of history. They are inherently notable. This AfD is, with all due respect, absurd. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the top of the [[speedy keep page: 'It is a generally accepted standard that editors should' [emphasis mine] attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense [emphasis mine] and the occasional exception. '

But regardless of any attempt to invoke bureaucracy as a way to denigrate an opinion, I stand by my !vote: this is attempt to avoid wide scrutiny for a massive--and entirely unwarranted--change. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is Wikipedia. A case could be made that the articles on different kinds of molecules or various TV series are indiscriminate collections of information. I don't find the nomination convincing and feel no need to defend the existence of these articles, sorry. JuJube (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not indiscriminate; to take a really obvious example, the commemoration of the events occurring on 5 November in 1605 and 1688 was traditionally linked. More generally, there is a genuine semantic connection between things occurring on the same day of the year. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pages are not indiscriminate, events are linked, there is a connection between things occurring on the same day of the year and are not trivial. Also the nominators disregard for even attempting to start a discussion at an established WikiProject before nomination is uncivil.feydey (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy to demonstrate notability with newspaper "This day in histories". Wily D 12:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep. We even systematically link these articles every day from the front page, for goodness sakes. They are a gateway to typically some of the best, most interesting, most well-developed content we have on Wikipedia. And there is significant interest in what happened on a particular day - for instance on a particular person's birthday. See also the currently open RfC on whether dates of birth and dates of death should be linked, which some people (and bots) think should be forbidden. We shouldn't be deleting these lists; nor should we be trying to remove all links to them as if they were some mad old relative that we were ashamed of, to be kept hidden away locked in the attic. These lists are good and useful, and something Wikipedia should be proud of. Jheald (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! The mere fact that these articles are linked from the main page, in fact, appears to constitute a reason for a Speedy keep. See this AfD for precedent. Methinks it is time to close this AfD--or shall we take seriously the possibility, however remote, of sabotaging both Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year and the main page? Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, per criterion #6 of WP:SK, these articles must be speedily kept (unless someone wants to make the contrived argument that #6 doesn't apply because it's currently November). Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it has been demonstrated by now that this nomination is frivolous. But just for good measure, here is a WP:RS: [1]. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Whether we like it or don't like it, the Wikipedia format for linking dates to articles is to say "November 12, 2008" instead of "November 12, 2008". It is what it is. This discussion was a spinoff of the discussion concerning deletion of August 1, 2003 and other articles, where GregL and Ohconfucius suggested that the current format is unsatisfactory. To answer the question about why one discussion is different from the other, the difference is that the "August 1, 2003" group is a departure from the rules, while the "March 1" group is consistent with the rules. I have no complaints about Greg and Confucius bringing up the subject for discussion, in the course of which folks now know that they can join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. It's kind of like what Joe Friday said when he arrested someone for possession of marijuana --- if you don't think it should be illegal, work on changing the law; until then, don't fault me if I'm enforcing the law. Just my opinion, ma'am. Mandsford (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not accept the above BBC link as a demonstration of a relevant deletion criterion in this debate (said to be notability - not that I ever argued it wasn't notable) because WP is not the news]]. However, I can accept the fact that the series of apparently trivial articles is linked to the main page is good enough for a speedy keep. I would withdraw my nomination, in the sincere hope that those editors who have been throwing the kitchen sink at my nomination can see there are genuine concerns as to the quality of these articles, and work to construct articles which are more encyclopaedic and less newspaper-like. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I personally found your 'concerns'--and your characterisation of the pages--to be groundless in the extreme, you will find no assistance from myself. Perhaps you can move elsewhere with your crusade. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2008 (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.