Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/September 1900

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) Erik9 (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 1900

Article violates naming of date related articles. We already have articles for 1900 and September 1 — September 30. Adding this is overkill. Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment What policy does it violate? Surely it's of equal importance to September 2000, for example? -- Chzz ► 13:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it violated naming conventions (Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(numbers_and_dates)#Articles_on_other_standard_time_periods), but apparently my knowledge is outdated. It's still a bad title because it's unlikely to be linked in articles (assuming the date linking debate finally gets resolved). - Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, in the year 2000 the mere fact we had technology meant there is much more to report that can't go into the year article without bloating it. 1900 has no such problem. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any problem with the article, and there are many other articles with similar naming. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, most of which should be deleted too. Don't get blinded by other crap existing. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine, but still keep as a useful article summarising notable events. Screw any naming conventions, if naming is an issue, it can be moved. Naming alone is not a reason to delete an article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The technology of the printing press had been invented by 1900. The amount of book, magazine, and newspaper production was enormous, and there will be enough to include for any month since at least 1800 or so. This is a basic organizational device, to facilitate both student work, and browsing. At present, I see at least one item for almost every day for this particular article, and it could probably be multiplied by at least 10. DGG (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No policy-based reason to delete it has been given that I can see. If necessary, the information in these month articles could be condensed and merged into the year article, but if there's enough material, I don't see the problem with breaking it out and having an article for each month. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, per above. The idea that there could be a problem getting enough notable material for a month a mere century ago is mind-boggling recentism, such articles could and should go back much further. John Z (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What reliable sources have significant coverage about this month, distinct from mentioning things that happened in the month? "it isn't hurting anything" is hardly a valid "keep" argument. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as article creator. I can understand that people disagree as to whether "month" articles like September 2005, September 1999, etc. should exist as an expansion of an article about a particular year -- the nominator questions whether that's necessary, which is a valid talking point -- but if that convention isn't banned by policy, please, let's not go down the road of whether a particular month is more "notable" than another. This isn't a popularity contest. It reminds me of the scene in the original Rollerball, where the computer misplaced the whole 13th century, and the scientist says "Not much in the century, just Dante and a few corrupt popes, but it's so annoying." To the extent that such articles exist, of course, I believe that they should include citations for the statements made. Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bazonka (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2009 (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.