Deletion of March 1

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: edit conflict) unless bad faith in the nomination can be confirmed or that anything establishing a consensus that days of the month are |inherently notable, the criteria for |speedy keep does not apply
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERITED||WP:SK)

Comment: Because days of the year are inherently |notable; insofar as the material van be |verified; because it would redlink access dates on citation templates (e.g., the "cite paper" template); and per Richard Cavell
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per other commenters; also note that these are not indiscriminate, as (among other things) people, events, etc. that happen on 364/365 or 365/366 of the year aren't supposed to be listed on any one of these pages.  Also consider that newspapers, radio stations, etc. often have a "this day in history" column or notice: as these pages don't violate core policies, and as having something of this sort is often seen, it would be appropriate to |ignore rules such as the trivia bit noted above, even if we admit (which I don't) the applicability of that argument here.  By the way, this isn't a joke: these two users already discussed such a thing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/August 1, 2003|this currently-running AFD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (WP:IAR)

Comment: I agree with what Ohconfucius wrote above. Well said. I would suggest though, that these articles not be truly “deleted,” but temporarily placed in non-article space so they may be picked through for data to use for expanding articles like August 2003 or August 1, 2003. I think it was a colossal violation of Wikipedia policy (|WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information) to have created ‘on this date throughout history’ articles in the first place as they are nothing more than beyond-worthless trivia and ''far'' too few readers take the time to wade (muck) through them. And when you consider the fact that their contents were virtually '''''never'''''&thinsp; germane to the article from which they were linked, it’s doubly wrong that editors linked to them for so long
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: I believe it has been demonstrated by now that this nomination is frivolous. But just for good measure, here is a : http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/1
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)