Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious leaders in 1863

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 an obvious consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious leaders in 1863[edit]

Why does this article exist? This should be deleted Cuñado - Talk 00:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's a useless list Jeff3000 04:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft mdd4696 04:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't feel too strongly on this, I just did one edit of it, but I can see how Bahais would be interested to know who the religious leaders were at this point in their history as Bahá'u'lláh did write to many of them.--T. Anthony 05:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lol, the ultimate in listcruft! Eusebeus 07:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Analogous to the Interesting number paradox, more trivial listcruft is always possible. For example, List of bald religious leaders in 1863. -- Plutor 12:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of bald religous leaders of Madagascar in 1863. BD2412 T 19:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    - List of headshaven religious leaders in Antananarivo in 1863. -LichYoshi 15:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If Bahá'u'lláh had important correspondence with Pius IX, then that should go in the articles about Bahá'u'lláh and Pius IX. It also implies that List of religious leaders in 1864, List of religious leaders in 1865 exists. Chronological lists like List of Popes, List of Sikh Gurus would be fine, then people could compare the religions they were interested in. List of religious leaders in 1863 is just the wrong way to organise the data. --Squiddy 10:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's this deal called-Category:Lists of religious leaders by year. I have the current year on my watchlist. Outside of that I've mostly done years of significance in some respect.(For example years that fit during the period of World War II I about have "finished." Well each year in those is far from finished, but there is something for most of those years.--T. Anthony 15:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

When I wrote that this list implies the existence of dittos for 1864, 1865, etc., it simply hadn't crossed my mind that someone might actually be toiling away at it. I still think, it organised the wrong way - lists by religion, not year, would come to no more than a few dozen lists of useful information. The contents of the handful of pages I looked at are quite west-centred too - only popes and mormon leaders. -- Squiddy 06:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a problem. I've tried to improve that by putting links to the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand and Dalai Lamas on the main page.--T. Anthony 17:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of the larger Religious leaders by year project, which is itself a subset of the State leaders by year effort. - SimonP 15:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP; these lists apparently reflect a lot of work, and the current category system can't duplicate this kind of information. That said, I'd be more comfortable voting to keep this if I could see any discussions or policies that show a consensus that these lists belong on Wikipedia at all; were there any, or is this a test-case? — Haeleth Talk 15:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. The project should be allowed to grow for a while before we start judging it. Youngamerican 17:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Most of these recent lists only have 1 leader per page. I Propose we List all the religious leaders for 1 century on a page.--Ewok Slayer 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an ongoing project and a lot of work has gone into it. Useful list. Capitalistroadster 17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SimonP. — RJH 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, worthwhile project. BD2412 T 19:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep per SimonP and Capitalistroadster. Andrew Levine 07:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listcruft, and presumably this would end up expanding to a similar article for every year to the present. --StoatBringer 17:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep love them lists. Klonimus 21:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in agreement with Ewok Slayer (aww... poor ewoks :( ) decade or century would be more appropriate --TimPope 21:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOT paper, so there's no need to limit ourselves. Part of a worthwhile project, per SimonP Sam Vimes 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Utterly ridiculous nomination. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Preaky 22:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Izehar 16:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.