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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of commemorative months[edit]

List of commemorative months (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article adds nothing to Wikipedia that the Category:Commemorative months doesn't, since the inclusion criteria on top of the page and in the hidden text states that months listed should have an article. I've spent some time on this and related articles and they are magnets for hoaxes and jokes that don't improve the encyclopedia. Sjö (talk) 14:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:CLN, we don't delete lists because there is a category too. Categories are currently getting some heat and their future seems uncertain as Wikidata may replace them. Warden (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is actually a classic example of a "good" list: encyclopedic content, useful to WP users for navigational purposes, sourced, limited in scope, with definite and understandable inclusion parameters... Carrite (talk) 15:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I will also add to the nominator, that the fact that a piece is an article for vandalism and smartassery isn't a valid rationale for deletion. Otherwise, Wikipedia would never have articles on George W. Bush or Barrack Obama, for example. AfD is not a substitute for article protection mechanisms... Carrite (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Warden and Carrite; both arguments in nomination fail, first as contra WP:CLN and second as nothing more than WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. It's one thing to acknowledge that you're arguing against the application of a guideline in a particular instance; it's quite another to not even acknowledge that the guideline exists when it directly contradicts or precludes your deletion rationale. postdlf (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, no valid reason for deletion provided by nominator, previously kept at AfD a year ago after a similarly non-policy-based nom. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 1 May 2013 (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.