Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious affiliations of presidents of the Philippines


 * 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW based on the nomination.

Thanks for your contributions and assuming good faith on this decision. If you have a problem with it, please bring up your concerns at Deletion review. Thank you and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Religious affiliations of presidents of the Philippines

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

This is another list which is an indiscriminate collection of trivia (WP:INDISCRIMINATE, definitely WP:Listcruft, and fails WP:LISTN, verifiability, and WP:NOSTATS. No reliable sources discuss that Religious affiliations of presidents of the Philippines is a topic for scholarly interest. The topic is not notable, and thus should be deleted. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another pointless “political notables by random arbitrary quality” list, and also even more pointless than usual because all but two or three(?) are unsurprisingly Catholics. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as per What Wikipedia is not. Suonii180 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. While religion does play a part in Philippine presidential politics (for example, The Politics of Religion in the Philippines notes instances of religious bloc voting for presidential candidates), that might be appropriate for an article, but not a list. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. SBKSPP (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Any group of people can theoretically be listed by any number of parameters. However, most of those combinations of groups and parameters constitute WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. In order for such a list to make for a valid stand-alone article, there needs to be a good reason why that particular group should be listed by that particular parameter. Otherwise, WP:DELREASON (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that there is a good reason to list this group by this parameter. I concur with that if this is a topic that should be covered on Wikipedia at all, a prose article would be way better than a list. TompaDompa (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:NOTDIR. Avilich (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as it additionally goes against the spirit of WP:BLPCAT and WP:LISTPEOPLE ("Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation"). Pilaz (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ExcellentWheatFarmer (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2021 (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.