Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assassinated Catholic priests in Guatemala

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinated Catholic priests in Guatemala

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable people; Wikipedia is not a directory. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has references, no solid reason given for deletion--all but one entry appears to be sourced at the time of nomination, and lists need not include only notable entries. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -- These people are potentially martyrs, and thus potential candidates for eventual canonisation. I am disturbed at the number of redlinks, but perhaps the person responsible for the article will deal with that in due course. Most of the items have references, so that there is presumably material out there to faciliate this. Lists constitute a method of identifying what articles are needed, and encouraging their creation. I will add that the articcle was nominated for AFD within a mere 20 minutes of creation. This is grossly premature and suggests bad faith on the part of the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting enough list but serves little use in isolation. Would serve a purpose within a wider international list of such potential "martyrs" listed by country and century of death if someone was inspired to compile such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 12:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can forsee that people will have all sorts of objections to the title of this article, but it's essentially a sourced list of murders of clergy during a period in Guatemala's history when priests were dying violently. A historical timeline is not the same as a yellow pages directory, and there is no requirement that every person ever mentioned in a Wikipedia article has to be notable enough for their own article. Mandsford 14:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we really want a list of people who violate WP:BLP1E? Having been murdered does not appear to be a notability requirement. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others. It seems that Notability should be included in such policies. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote from the first sentence of Wikipedia:Notability: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." The millions of pages here are abundant with mentions of people who do not merit their own separate articles. Mandsford 20:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List has reliable sources and WP:MULT. Taken individually, they might be non-notable as a WP:BLP1E. But, as per Mandsford's observation, the deaths add up and reflect a violent period in another country's history. The red links do not disturb me as history is written by the victors. In this case, it is easy to see that an American, Stanley Rother, has received verifiable press. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (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.