Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian feasts on January 1


 * 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. A redirect to January 1 can be made if someone wishes; the appropriate location for contesting that is at WP:RFD. NW ( Talk ) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian feasts on January 1

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The page was originally created to be used as a template, but it is impractical and not in use. The author started a task that would have required a lot of work and has since abandoned it. The following related items are also included:
 * Category:Christian feasts by day
 * Category:Christian feasts by day

-- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I know that categories have their own CfD process, but this one is a part of this package and it doesn't make sense to discuss it separately. I couldn't add the AfD tag to the category page because it is in the wrong namespace but I don't think that should prevent it from being a part of this discussion.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 13:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note The category is almost included by default- if both articles are deleted, the category will be deleted per CSD criterion C1 4 days later if left alone, as these two articles are the only ones in the category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to January 1 where the article is already presented in its entirety. It is unlikely for more Christian feasts to pop up on this day anytime soon, due to the traditional nature of the religion, so there's no pressing need for a spinout due to length.  Them  From  Space  19:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both. These do seem to be an abandoned project, and as of now the material is just a copy of parts of January 1 and January 2.  I don't think redirects are called for, as "Christian feasts of January X" is an improbable search term to type into the main box.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 22:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambivalent redirecting or deleting really depends on the usefulness of the redirect, but yes, if this stuff is already covered in the individual day of the year articles, there's no need for this to be kept as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and no redirect, since this not likely as a search term. Any article that might can link to "Christian feasts on January 1" can already be linked to "Christian feasts on January 1" by a simple change in punctuation. Mandsford (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge (though there is in fact nothing that requires merger, since substantially the whole text appears in January 1. Whether to retain the redirect dependds on whetherb the closing admin is willing to substitute the links to the article.  That would be the only merit of a redirect.  The same procedure should be applied to January 2.  If there are any other dates with articles of this type, they will require a mass AFD nomination, after which the category should be deleted - possibly by just leaving it empty.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to January 1. I may pick up the project again when I get more time. Philly jawn (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't something that should be picked up at a later time. At least not without the support of a project. It's too much for one editor to undertake alone and it's just a bad idea anyway. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect articles to the corresponding date articles (i.e. Christian feasts on January 1 to January 1). I think that's the most logical solution. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2010 (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.