Deletion of August 1, 2003

Comment: I hate to say this, but I actually think these ‘exact-date’ articles could be a useful resource for writers. For instance, one might be writing about how someone rather famous died but hardly anyone knew about it. Well, with these exact-date articles, one could go look and see if there was a big airplane crash or huge-ass earthquake somewhere that dominated the news around that time. This is ''entirely separate'' from the issue of whether or not these articles ought to be routinely linked to via non-aliased links that turn ordinary body text dates blue.When someone nominates all our “on this day throughout history” articles (like January 1|January&nbsp;1) for deletion, someone please let me know. I am quite motivated to provide my best case for deletion of all of them. Nuke ’em, cremate ’em, scatter their ashes to the wind, walk away and forget ’em. 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: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: per above, and per .  Dates are ''obvious'' search terms, and more or less a poster-child (calendar-child?) for the policy that says to create useful redirects instead of bogging down AFD
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)