Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders in 1946


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

List of religious leaders in 1946
Non-notable list. There is no significance to the date 1946. If we're going to have a list for 1946, why not 1978, or 1935, etc? Delete Atrian 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as listcruft Weak keep as part of a wikiproject -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Question: Who's going to tag the rest of Category:Lists of religious leaders by year ? Kappa 06:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't bring them all to AFD individually. Let's just make this a centralized discussion about all of them.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 06:58Z 
 * So you're planning to delete them without letting the people who worked on them know? Kappa 07:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Atrian tried to get them speedied first. And, of course, went for the new and underdeveloped one instead of List of religious leaders in 2005 (anyone considering deletion of the 1946 one as a small, useless list, please do look at the 2005 one to see what this will eventually become).  Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders in 1863 is a previous deletion attempt. -- Jonel | Speak 08:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe tag all of them and link to one discussion, but it's pointless to discuss each separately. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 08:19Z 
 * Not this again. I'm working on these lists tonight. They are part of the whole category. Sheesh listophobes.--T. Anthony 06:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact I created this just eight minutes before you AfD'd it. Give a guy a bit of time or warning first, will ya?--T. Anthony 06:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree a good-faith article creation deserves more than 8 minutes. But now that it's here...  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 06:58Z 


 * Why not merge this info into the year articles? The year articles already have lists of political leaders, why not religious leaders in the same place.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 06:58Z 
 * We'd also have to merge List of state leaders in 1946 for fairness sake. Lists of religious or secular leaders by year are in World Almanacs. Until there is such a thing as "Wiki-Almanac" this seems appropriate and it has it's own page.--T. Anthony 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As for the assertion there is no significance to this year that is plainly false. New religious movements are sometimes defined as religions that arose after World War II. 1946 is the year after the war ended and marks the beginning of religions dealing with the nuclear age.--T. Anthony 07:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - As to the significance of the date, please look at Religious leaders by year. There are lists for every year since 1935, with the odd exception of 1951.  All of those articles, as well as lists of state leaders, colonial governors, and leaders of international organizations were created as part of a WikiProject (WikiProject Leaders by year). The reason they are part of separate pages instead of on the year page (as Quarl erroneously claims they are in general--they aren't, and if a specific year page has any leaders, they should be moved off it to the appropriate separate list) because the lists are huge (especially state leaders, which is the set of lists that gets the most attention). -- Jonel | Speak 07:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's two hours after I created it so some of you can check what I've done so far. Anyway thanks Jonel.--T. Anthony 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I filled in 1951. I was being a bit lazy because I think it was a year a Mormon leader died so I had to do one of those twofer things.--T. Anthony 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm leaning towards keep now. BTW the reason I thought years contained political leaders is due to the list in 1 (I was working on math articles).  I see now that most year articles don't have the list embedded.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 08:16Z 
 * I've fixed 1 now, or at least as fixed as it gets until there's a C1YearInTopic template. The List of state leaders in 1 is much fuller than what was in that little section.  I figured you'd probably ran into one or more that did have the leaders there still--drop a note on my talk page if you know of any more and I'll fix them. Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 08:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep -- It's part of WikiProject Leaders by year. -- User:Docu
 * Keep -- It's part of WikiProject Leaders by year. if you want to delete one, then try deleting them all. --Jiang 08:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per Jonel Davewild 09:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep not wikipedia's most important project, but a perfectly legitimate one. Leave it alone please. Choalbaton 09:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: nom. says, "If we're going to have a list for 1946, why not 1978, or 1935, etc." - well, we do have 1978 and 1935. Weak argument.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or start a discussion to build consensus to delete them all. No point in deletiong just one. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Jonel. Mushintalk 18:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, part of a legitimate WikiProject. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as legtimate, verifiable list. Bad faith to nominate so soon after creation, and as Wknight94 points out, fails to meet nom's own criteria. Turnstep 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - won't this mean a bunch of near-identical articles? I mean, odds are there won't be that many differences between the list for, say, 1951 and 1952 or 1930 and 1931, etc. Wouldn't be better to approach this by decade and/or do a "(Year) in Religion" series of articles like they do with films and books? 23skidoo 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I worked alot on these, but I'd be okay with merging it so it's done by decade instead of by year.--T. Anthony 05:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In the interest of maintainability, articles by decade seems like a better idea. For example, in the state leaders series, List_of_state_leaders_in_18BC looks pretty complete, but all the "neighboring" articles like List of state leaders in 17 BC and List of state leaders in 19 BC are practically empty.  What was significant abou 18 BC? Whatlinkshere is interesting.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 08:17Z 


 * 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.