Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1645 in the Papal States


 * 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 Delete. Mike V •  Talk  15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

1645 in the Papal States

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reference and too short to understand the subject. Lets see what others think. Should we keep this or delete.  J i m Carter  ( talk ) 13:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Essentially an empty article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  13:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * delete as above; listing one pope isn't enough content. Also nominating the following article which has the same issues:


 * Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- also 1816 in the Papal States, the only other annual category. Neither does more than name the current Pope, which can easily be discovered from other sources.  I would suggest that if there are events worthy of mention, they would be much better included in the article on the Pope then in office.  I regard these annual articles (and categories) as mere clutter, certainly when they refer to relatiely distant periods.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Some one has complained that I was commenting on an empty article. When I did so, it was nearly but not quite empty.  It is now slightly fuller, but I still regard it as largely empty.  If we are going to have articles of this kind, I would prefer 1640s in the Papal States or Papal States in pontificate of Pope Joe VI (an intentionally random name).  However, since such a series of articles is related to the head of the Catholic Church, it is important that the articles should relate to events concerned with the Papal States, as opposed to acts of the pope as head of the Catholic Church.  Thus the appointment of an archbishop of Brussels as a cardinal might involve a cerimony held in Rome, but it is hardly an act of the monarch of the Papal States.  I still say Delete.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - there is plenty that can be added to the article and the suggestion that it should be deleted because nobody has bothered is a bit silly. I've spent plenty of time working in this particular subject area, within this date range in particular and let me tell you, plenty happened there during that year and in the years either side. I spent 2 minutes adding content and the article now has 7 times as many entries. That said, I don't think articles like these serve much of a purpose. All of the events in question are covered extensively in other articles and so probably don't need to be repeated here. But that's an argument against these sorts of articles in general. In 1644 (one year earlier) the papal states had two popes, 2 consistories, a conclave and ended a 4-year war. There would be plenty for a 1644 in the Papal States, I can guarantee it. Stalwart 111  23:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I'm not suggesting this should be kept, nor am I suggesting we should start creating other XXXX in the Papal States articles just because we can. But if we are going to do away with them completely (by deleting the only two that exist) it should be for better reasons than "they are empty" given that's a matter of a lack of interest rather than a lack of content. Stalwart 111  02:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say lack of interest, since the articles do exist. But after all these years it is as reasonable to presume that the lack of content is due to, well, a lack of content. It seems altogether likely that the Papal States were not such busy places that a year-by-year chronology is a necessary approach. In particular it is make-work duplication to lay such a history of the papacy itself into such articles. Mangoe (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, a lack of something because in a couple of minutes I was able to fill it out fairly easily and, as suggested above, this is probably one of the least busy years of the 1640s for the Papal States. It fell right in between the two Wars of Castro and was a period of general stability (for a couple of years) between the excesses of Pope Urban VIII and those of Pope Innocent X (when he finally, effectively, took control in around 1647). But it was also the final few years of the Thirty Years' War and the Eighty Years' War, both of which involved the Papal States. I don't disagree with the "make-work duplication" aspect but that should be our reason for deletion, not a lack of content. Because there is certainly no lack of content. Stalwart 111  13:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  21:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Delete or Userfy both, with Comment. Rather than have two stubs of apparently arbitrary dates, why not first make the article: History of the Papal States or even a list-style Timeline of the Papal States? It would be a more useful resource to readers, and would likely facilitate more rapid expansion and development (i.e. the visibility of any gaps would be more apparent to historians whose expertise is not 1645). To me, centralized coverage is better than scattered stubs (this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary), and specific years should only be split off of the article if and when they become too long to dwell in a single article. So I'm recommending delete or userfy for now, then add/restore content later.--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would say speedy abdicate both because of A1, per nom. This is not my last name (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2014 (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.