Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2101

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 revert to redirects, or in some cases, revert to/create disambiguation pages. Daniel Bryant 08:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2101

This page is too far in the future to have a page of its own. Only anniversaries on at the moment. Philip Stevens 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Keep as redirects Until today most of these articles were redirects to their respective centuries until User:Voortle recreated them. This Afd should also be more properly called Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2123 (second nomination) , since you already proposed all these articles be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2123. The result was keep/no consensus, with a general trend towards redirecting. Why not just revert to the versions before today? Dina 18:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirects, as per Dina. No need for AfD mechanics here. SnowFire 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all per above. --Czj 20:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. — RJH (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit premature to create such articles which merely say #### will be a year." Absolutely pointless. Edison 15:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to redirects per all of the above, minus immediately above, and nom. Curtmack of the Asylum 15:50, 12 April 2007 (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.