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. Daniel (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of days of the year[edit]

List of days of the year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The article is nothing more than a literal list of days of the year. There is no reason why it should exist. Philosophy2 (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 04:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it gets 645 pageviews a day, probably because people find it useful. I'm not sure, but some possibilities are people who can't remember which months, such as November, have no 31st, and people from cultures with a different system of months. Also, this falls under WP:Stand-alone lists, which considers such lists to be subpages of articles on notable topics, spun off to conserve space or improve readability. Abductive (reasoning) 05:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it gets that many page views is because there is a link to it on the Main Page, under the On this day section. Philosophy2 (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Picture of the day/Archive is also linked from the Main Page, but gets only about a third of the pageviews. This suggests it is being used as a valid navigational list, as User:Dream Focus notes below. Abductive (reasoning) 06:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is a valid navigational list. No valid reason given to delete it. WP:USELESS is not a valid reason to delete. Dream Focus 06:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nomination is not that it is useless, rather that there is no valid reason why such a page should exist on Wikipedia. Philosophy2 (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Under its previous title, List of historical anniversaries, the article survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical anniversaries in September 2020. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we already have Template:Months, which is in the correct namespace. This is an unnecessary list article, and can be served by the template perfectly adequately. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This article has received Pageviews: 242,824 within the past year. Many prefer this list than the template. No reason to destroy one simply because you prefer another. Dream Focus 15:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to have two things with exactly the same purpose, it's just a waste of time. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Waste of whose time and how? Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates explains the situation well. Dream Focus 18:18, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CLT. ansh.666 16:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It serves a valid navigational purpose, and it would be weird to link from the Main Page to a template. Having an article also allows for extra flexibility in things like a "See also" list and other ancillary material that would overcrowd a template. If we're so worried about redundancy, we can replace the big table in this article with ((Months)). Easy fix, no deletion necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a valid navigational list. I don't see a problem with having an article and a template serving the same navigational purpose (this is not like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of years in film, which duplicated the functionality of both another article and a template). I would also like to note that this qualifies for WP:CSK#6, since it's linked from the main page. TompaDompa (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well according to the strict definition of WP:CSK#6, it could never be considered for deletion, as it's always on the front page. Which makes no sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. This is inherently useful, and would remain so even if it was not linked from the main page. BD2412 T 19:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep at least until it is removed from WP:Selected anniversaries, which would probably require a discussion on the talk page as that's changing the main page. snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 23:00, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a list, it's not exactly subject to the usual notability things and it certainly has an use-case as a navigational template. Though it could probably be better in template space, I don't see any particular reason to rock the boat in this one. Juxlos (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2021 (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.