Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Order in which countries enter the new year


 * 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 redirect‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of time zones by country. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Order in which countries enter the new year

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No citations, completely orphaned, and this topic is already covered by List of time zones by country. ― Howard • 🌽33 15:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ― Howard • 🌽33 15:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect: to List of time zones by country. The rationale makes sense, but redirects are cheap and this meets the criteria for WP: ATD-R. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of time zones by country per above. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of time zones by country per above. Rocfan275 (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think deletion in some sense seems inevitable here, but I have to ask, what possible purpose does a redirect serve here?  It's not a plausible search term; it's not a plausible phrase to link from.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirects are WP: CHEAP, so why not? HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One redirect is cheap; millions are WP:COSTLY, so why? Even still, that's no argument against deletion.  There's no page history worth keeping here, and this would be a useless redirect, so why create it?  Nothing would stop anyone from creating this name as a redirect after deletion, except of course for the fact that it's such an awkward, implausible phrase. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We both agree that making one redirect is cheap, which is what we're actually doing here. I don't see what's left to discuss. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We most definitely do not agree. You've provided no rationale why this should be converted to a redirect instead of a WP:VAGUEWAVE to WP:ATD-R.  I would advocate for deletion of this redirect.  35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect WP:RPURPOSE says that redirects to [s]ubtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article are legitimate redirect. Consider also WP:R #2 and 5. The very existence of this AfD proves that the redirect would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely. Nickps (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2024 (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.