Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Sunday in March
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 snowball delete. Sr13 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Second Sunday in March
Very little content; little possibility for expansion. greenrd 00:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Absolutely no need to keep this thing around. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Actions • Words))) 00:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. Absolutely worthless to keep. And just pointless, If you know what I mean. We alrealy have an article on March 11.Elfin341 02:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Nothing more than a calendar entry. Resolute 04:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep For a couple of months I've been wondering "what was the date of the second Sunday in March this year?" If only I'd known this article existed I could have solved this mystery before! WTF? Delete of course. Masaruemoto 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete, indiscriminate information at its finest, not encyclopedic at all. WP:NOT an annotated (non)perpetual calendar. --Kinu t/c 05:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- neutral, apparently this is the day daylight savings begins. Apparently an attempt to gain search engine results (googlebot sometimes scans articles like this and picks out random facts and allows you to use natural text queries, such as [1] Nardman1 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- That is not true outside of the U.S., and you'll find that the situation with DST even in the U.S. is far from that simple. We have lengthy discussions of this subject at Daylight saving time around the world#United States and its related articles. Uncle G 12:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Strong delete per other delete entries above. --Metropolitan90 07:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As redundant, and possibly also redundant.Charlie 08:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. There's a certain Zen perfection in this article's perfect uselessness. -FisherQueen (Talk) 13:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. As per above, in spite of Zen perfection. BobFromBrockley 14:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very strong delete. I only wish I could come up with a reason to speedy this .. this is consummately unencyclopedic. Arkyan • (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Slavlin 16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
