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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 0[edit]

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

Seems to fail notability guidelines. Aside from being a fictional day that is featured in Microsoft Excel, nothing else can be really be said about it. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see that being mentioned in a spreadsheet program has any encyclopaedic merit in terms of WP:RS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Referenced in Doomsday rule, which explains it much better; March 0 is the last day of February, whether or not February has a leap year. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per Edward Vielmetti. If it is already explained elsewhere, and it isn't notable, why do we need an article on it? (There is no content to merge.) — æk ^Talk 05:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to February 29 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)— 76.66.197.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "March 0" refers to the last day in February, whether it is the 28th or 29th. Ergo the proposed redirect is not appropriate. — æk ^Talk 06:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would be a dab page... but I think more people will expect it to be Feb 29. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had no difficulty finding a source which I have added to the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is used in the Astronomical Almanac and I have edited the article accordingly. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I would hope that more sources could be added over time. We shall see. JBsupreme (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources added to the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep It has multiple uses and sources. dude1818 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2010 (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.