Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of months by year: 1900-1999

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ugen64 01:58, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of months by year: 1900-1999

Lots of redlinks, not useful. Edward 22:38, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

What? Delete --Doc (?) 00:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Is a separate VfD entry necessary for each of the related articles: List_of_months_by_year:_1600-1699, List_of_months_by_year:_1700-1799, List_of_months_by_year:_1800-1899, List of months by year: 2000-2005? --Tabor 00:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Evidently, there is a parent article too, List_of_months_by_year --Tabor 00:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete this and all related. Simply not necessary, especially given the fact it's almost all redlinks. 23skidoo 00:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hoo boy. Delete this and all similar pages – I don't think we need a calendar that's 98% redlinks, and I really hope this was done with a spreadsheet or other automated process and not by hand. AиDя01D TALK EMAIL 01:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Delete --NeoJustin 02:35 June 3, 2004
Delete. Insanity. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:42, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
Delete only after cleanup. This page should be only red links. If you look at the others, you will see they are mostly redirects for dates that are not linked correctly in the source article. I cleaned up May 1914, July 1944 and April 1945, which need to be deleted, and are now redirects without any links here except for the page we are discusing. Maybe we can finish the cleanup. Vegaswikian 06:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, you have got to be kidding. Delete pointless list-cruft. This article and all the related articles. I'm beginning to think we need a WikiList sister project so all the list-obsessives who show up here periodically can go list everything everywhere by every criteria and the rest of us can actually edit articles. Soundguy99 06:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
By Jove! Delete this and all related - rather unnecessary list to say the least, as if number and names of months would change every year. Many lists were supposed to be superceded by the Category system but it appears some potential contributors rather have more of them. - Skysmith 08:49, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Delete — no useful content. — RJH 14:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yikes! Someone went to a whole lot of work for no apparent benefit. Gently delete this entirely pointless article, and its brethren. Denni ☯ 02:23, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Keep. Neutrality^talk 02:30, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. Seems like overkill to me, too, but it should be noted that there actually seem to be Month Year entries in existence for all the cells in the List of months by year: 2000-2005 table. I think an overall discussion of whether this sort of 'breakdown or re-hashing or WhateverYouWantToCallIt of the almanac-style info Wikipedia has' is, useful/desireable/appropriate/worth-maintaining, etc., before we delete a bunch of stuff that has been created for some month/year combinations while keeping others. (Niteowlneils--forgot to login) 24.19.145.84 04:17, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.