Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous Catholics in U.S. History

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Sufficiently discriminate to meet WP:List. A rename should be discussed on the article talk page.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Catholics in U.S. History

edit
Famous Catholics in U.S. History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The AfD on "List of famous Catholics" was withdrawn by nominator, with two outstanding delete !votes, on the grounds of a page move which really didn't address the deletion rationale. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list, violates WP:SALAT. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blanchardb, this is not an indiscriminate and unmaintainable list and thus there is no violation. I have outlined specific criteria to guide this list in other posts. Melchoir makes a good point that it would relieve pressure from Catholicism in the United States#Notable American Catholics. With specific criteria, this would be a very useful list. I welcome anyone to add other reasonable criteria for maintaing this list. I think this Wikipedia article of Famous Catholics in U.S. history was marked for deletion way too quickly. I think you should have allowed this article to maturate before making a judgment per Wikipedia policy. Deleting this page would be an error and no strong argument has been or can be presented for its deletion based upon Wikipedia policy, in my view. Deleting this article would mean you should arbitrarily delete countless others. That is not a good way to go. I ask you to remove the deleting and close this deletion discussion. In its place, a discussion page could be added on how to improve this article. I don't think a deletion page is the right place to discuss how we can improve the article. I think the case is overwhelmingly strong that this article does not warrant deletion. Instead, I request that a "improve this article" talk page would be a better option.Frostandchill (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'd be curious to discuss, though, what constitutes "fame" in this case... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fame would be identified by certain achievements. There will need to be standards for inclusion on this list. That is one thing that will make this list unique and specifically informative and helpful. Criteria can include the following: For athletes, specific achievements by being a MLB all-star, a Hall of Famer (i.e. Babe Ruth), an MVP winner. For politicians, politicians who have risen to heights in state or national U.S. government (ie. governor, senator, president, Supreme Court Justice). For actors/actresses, those people with major roles in projects that are high grossing in revenue (i.e. Passion of the Christ), are in highly rated television programming, or who have received notable awards or nominations (i.e. Emmy, Oscar, etc.). For authors, best-selling books (i.e. Witness to Hope) or award winners (i.e. Pulitzer). For musicians, high selling albums/awards won (i.e. Grammy). The list could also include Nobel prize winners if there are any U.S. Catholics who have done so. The list could also include U.S. citizens canonized as saints: this is a very small list, only a couple as far as I know. This might seem like a lot of categories, but the number of people who fit under each category probably would be very limited. The whole idea is to have it include Catholics who have reached such heights as given in the preceding examples. This way, the list has standards and is as helpful as possible.Frostandchill (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I just thought of this after Melchoir's comment... Another qualification for being listed could be that this particular Catholic already has a current Wikipedia page. For example, all of the people on the Famous Catholics in U.S. History article already have separate wikipedia pages to link to. If there is no current wikipedia page to link to, then we can agree to not include the person on the list. That narrows the field to begin with. Second, with this narrowed field, the field of people is further narrowed in that they are involved in U.S. History, i.e. they are U.S. citizens. Third, the field is narrowed to a much smaller number to those who have risen to heights in the public eye specifically such as being President, being a Governor, a blockbuster actress, an Oscar award winner, a Grammy winner, a Hall-of-Famer, an all-star, etc. So with specific criteria for inclusion on the list, it can be very useful, informative, and also enjoyable to edit!Frostandchill (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the comment that this article can be educational. I think it is a valid addition as a subcategory to Lists of Roman Catholics. A good point is made that the US is historically protestant/puritan. For example, there has been only one Catholic U.S. president. This article would be limited in scope and educational. Wikipedia users, in my opinion, would benefit from this article. An accurate and concise article of this specific nature, as far as I know in searches, does not yet exist. I thank you very much and I hope to contribute to Wikipedia community with this helpful and informative article. Fame specifically refers to people who are notable within their specific field. For example, famous politicians would include the Kennedy's. This would be noted Catholics in U.S. history in politics, sports (i.e. Mike Piazza, whom many consider a future hall of famer), arts, music, etc. Fame indicates that the person has excelled beyond the level of the majority (being president, going into Hall of Fame, blockbuster movies, albums, etc.Frostandchill (talk) 04:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SALAT. Although the United States is a majority Protestant (not Puritan, which is a distinct movement within Protestantism) country, it also has the fourth-highest population of Catholics of any country in the world. Even when limited to U.S. Catholics, this list is still likely to be too large to be manageable. I would also point out that there is a page called Lists of Roman Catholics which indicates that certain lists of Catholics in certain specific occupations exist as separate pages on Wikipedia -- as opposed to trying to include all of them in all occupations on a single page. Perhaps additional lists (that's lists, plural) of Catholics would be appropriate, but not a single all-encompassing list for a country which currently has over 70 million Catholics. (I also think this article has an unusual definition of what counts as being in "history", but that's just an incidental matter.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Metropolitan, this will not be a list of all Catholics in the U.S. It will specifically list Catholics of historical significance for the history of the country and also the social, cultural, and political interests of today. The idea is, even though there are many Catholics today, to specifically list those Catholics who have made particular contributions to U.S. history in their respective fields. This is meant to be an objective list. Also, Jim Caviezel is a noted Catholic, Metropolitan.Frostandchill (talk) 05:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't think you were going to list all the Catholics in the U.S., but even if you list just the notable ones, this could still become a really long list. I do believe that Caviezel is Catholic, but I removed the reference after his name because the page to which it linked didn't specifically mention that he was Catholic. (Also, your "keep" recommendation was already taken into account above and should not appear in boldface again at the beginning of any succeeding comments you make in this AfD.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Define "long", Metropolitan90. It won't be any longer than any other list on Wikipedia. I don't think that length is a good excuse for deletion. 1st, it is not currently long. 2nd, there is no intention to make it enormously long. 3rd, it won't be any longer than any other list on Wikipedia. A list as one article for this specific topic, I assert, is sufficient. There is no need to overdue this, but it is important not to omit anyone of significance. Look at the List of Catholic Authors. If length is to be used as an argument then that list along with countless others should be deleted too. There is no tangible argument for this article's deletion. The request for deletion should be removed. If Wikipedia wants consistency, then if this article is deleted, tons of other lists should be removed as well. No current argument has been demonstrated for this article's deletion and this article on famous Catholics in U.S. history should not be singled out. Again, if you single out this specific article, then what is stopping you from singling out the other lists?Frostandchill (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also add that the number of Catholic U.S. politicians of high stature is, historically, not very long. The article will highlight in particular those Catholics in U.S. history who have actually excelled in different facets. I also suggest that if indeed the list does become extremely long, which I don't intend it to be, that it be later divided into subcategories. But as of now, having separating articles for Famous Catholic Athletes in US Hist., Famous Catholic Actors in US Hist, Famous Catholic Politicians in US Hist, etc. is not necessary. I deem it more efficient to have one single concise and accurate list which will be easily accessed by Wikipedia users. The usefulness and relevance of such a list for the Wikipedia community cannot be understated.Frostandchill (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The existence of this list should relieve some pressure from Catholicism in the United States#Notable American Catholics. Melchoir (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Rename - Valuable list, but needs new title, possibly List of notable Roman Catholic Americans. jengod (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Violates many a guideline and is a ridiculously huge slice of humanity. Next up, List of famous American women. Abductive (reasoning) 07:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abductive, have you even read the above comments? The field has been limited to select persons meeting certain criteria as deemed in above comments. So the persons who would qualify for this list is not "a ridiculously huge slice of humanity." Additionally, you do not give any tangible argument for your vote for deletion. You claim that this violate guidelines, but you fail to provide an explanation. Third, you mention a list of famous American women. You mentioned it sarcastically, but that really isn't a bad idea, if there are certain guidelines. If it is famous women in U.S. history, the number is rather limited because throughout history most of the politicians, for example, have been men. Certainly the list would include Rosa Parks, Hilary Clinton, Susan B. Anthony, etc. I'm not going to make such a list and I haven't searched to see if there is already one of its nature on wikipedia. Maybe, Abductive, you could take the initiative to compile it. As it stands in regard to the said Famous Catholics in U.S. history, this list is of great value. Also, with your length argument, the list is not currently long, there is no plans to make it extremely long, the criteria used for this list will prevent extreme length, and it will not exceed the length of any other list currently on Wikipedia. I repeat what I said above, if this list of Famous Catholics in U.S. history deserves deletion based upon length alone, then so do other thousands of lists on Wikipedia. And also, Abductive, if length alone is deemed the sole criteria for deletion, what is your definition of "too long"? Lastly, I will restate that if the majority of people think the list has become way too long, which it probably won't, then we can further subdivide it into other articles. Abductive, I ask that you give this article time to maturate before giving it a delete vote without any substantial reasoning to back up your delete vote.Frostandchill (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmanageable and unmaintainable list, no inclusion criteria at this point and the suggested criteria above are completely arbitrary. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note is to make sure that every person listed has a specific reference that clearly states that the person is Catholic. Thank you to Metropolitan for bringing this to my attention. It is my hope that this article does not get deleted. My hope is that it will be given time to maturate and that there be an active talk page to improve the article. I hope the majority of you see the value of this article for the wikipedia community and will help improve it rather than requesting deletion. Thanks.Frostandchill (talk) 00:23, 23 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Famous_Catholics_in_U.S._History&oldid=1087634891"