This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete -- Francs2000 | Talk 02:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholics[edit]

This is an overly broad list, which leads to significant incompleteness in each subcategory. Many more narrowly defined lists of Catholics exist - see Category:Roman Catholics. Should be deleted as a list of loosely associated topics, or made a redirect to Category:Roman Catholics or some other such article. NoSeptember 17:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The list should be modified, but I'm not for deletion. As I said on the Talk page- it's about definition. Catholics are people once baptized in the Catholic Church who have not explicitely "crossed over" into some other faith. They may have become atheists or indifferent, but- this doesnt matter. Btw- was Luther a "Lutheran" ? Or Marx a "marxist" ? Mir Harven 18:15, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• See Talk:List of Roman Catholics for possible clarification.Mir Harven 18:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Use category instead. It's a controversial issue anyway, as a lot of people are Roman Catholic but aren't practicing. Even Eminem is allegedly, theoretically one, but he obviously doesn't practice. Not to mention the category is potentially huge, and would probably have to be broken up into "American Catholics," etc. -newkai | talk | contribs 18:22, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Personally, I think any excuse to delete this list will be attempted! Why is that I wonder? It's not a "controversial" issue either. I have no problems with lists of Methodists and Baptists, Jews and Muslims. But if anyone dares to make a comprehensive list of Catholics the world's is somehow threatened!? I'm all for breaking up the list so that some of the bigger sub-sections can be their own pages. This page is still valid. Dwain 18:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • The breaking up of this list as you describe is what Category:Roman Catholics already does. We can create an article for any subcategory on this list that does not already have one, but many subcategories already have their own article (so we are duplicating effort here). NoSeptember 18:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Potentally ginormous list. Delete. And if List of Muslims or List of Jews exist, consider listing them here as well. humblefool® 19:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Me again. Double standards ? List_of_Lutherans, List_of_Latter-day_Saints, List_of_Buddhists, or: Lists_of_people_by_belief. Keep, but: modify & break. Mir Harven 19:52, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If someone were to place these articles up for VFD I'd vote to delete for the same reasons as given below. I might even do so myself if I have the time. 23skidoo 21:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• PLEASE DO NOT DELETE--I HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY (AT KINKO'S) TRYING TO KEEP THE LIST UPDATED. I HAVE DONE SO WITH METICULOUSNESS AND SINCE IT IS SOMETHING I KNOW A LOT ABOUT I HAVE ENJOYED DOING IT. THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE THAT TOO MUCH INFO. IS PRESENT, NOT THAT IT IS INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!! (rms125a@hotmail.com)
  • Above unsigned vote is by User:63.164.145.85 who I can verify has added well over 100 names to the list just in the last few days. It would seem reasonable to count his vote. NoSeptember 21:40, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems redundant with the cateogry and all, and open to anyone throwing their name in the list, particularly as, unlike some other lists, no one is famous just for being a Catholic. I think the same goes for other religion lists. Categories are better. Delete. -R. fiend 21:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far too broad and unmaintainable. There is already Roman Catholics category (which in itself is too broad) and a number of R.C. subcategories. 23skidoo 21:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and also the categories, all of which are completely absurd. There are more than one billion catholics in the world, and that does not even include dead people. A large proportion of biography articles would have to be linked there and also be put into those categories. You could just as well make a list of men and a list of woman plus categories. Martg76 21:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a subset of List of Christians which is similar to List of Muslims... I don't think every religious affiliation list is going to be deleted and I don't see how this is different than the others. I do think it might be wise to break it up into sub-lists just as it is a sub-list of the Christians list gren 22:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The list in unmaintainable. There are millions of catholics in the world and wikipedia is not a telephone book. Fbergo 22:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I think it is implying notable Catholics. gren 23:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE--I HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME AND MONEY (AT KINKO'S) TRYING TO KEEP THE LIST UPDATED. I HAVE DONE SO WITH METICULOUSNESS AND SINCE IT IS SOMETHING I KNOW A LOT ABOUT I HAVE ENJOYCED DOING IT. THE PROBLEM SEEMS TO BE THAT TOO MUCH INFO. IS PRESENT, NOT THAT IT IS INACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT!! (rms125a@hotmail.com) Addendum to previous message: I think that it would be best to simply place a moratorium on any new additions or edits to the "List of Roman Catholics", so that a division by category can be arranged. I did not realize that space would be such an issue for Wikipedia--as a near-computer illiterate, I thought cyberspace was unlimited, but I see there is a problem, so as of 12:01 A.M. (7/25/05), a MORATORIUM should be installed prohibiting any new additions, deletions, edits, etc., only permitting viewing. Thanks for your attention!! Robert Sieger (rms125a@hotmail.com)

• • A moratorium is not necessary. The information in the list will be preserved, either in the current list, new subcategory lists, or in the category scheme (although there are a lot of red links), and it will be at least 5 days before any action is taken as a result of this vote. NoSeptember 23:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you "NoSeptember". R. Sieger (rms125a@hotmail.com)

If I may give Mr. Sieger a piece of advice, I wouldn't recommend using Wikipedia as a "back up" or a personal storehouse for information (in fact the comments above nearly made me vote delete based upon the no original research rule based upon the impression I got). Anything posted here can be deleted, altered, vandalized, or what have you at any time, and Wikipedia itself has a habit of becoming inaccessible with annoying regularity. If there is any research or information in any article that you've created that you really don't want to lose, I suggest making a back-up of it to either your hard drive or a printed hardcopy ASAP. 23skidoo 00:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Break into smaller individual articles. It could be useful, but it's far too overwhelming as one page. - Che Nuevara, the Democratic Revolutionary 05:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Having read the "delete answers", I've came to a unanimous (hehheh..) conclusion: the list must be kept. Arguments for deletion go something like this: yeah, and List of Muslims, List of Jews, List of Buddhists, .., too.. It won't happen. These list will not be deleted. So- either all or not a single one. Since the former option is out of question- the RCC list must stay (albet radically modified in not a few features). Since I was the one who has been, initially, the most suspicious about the RCC list, I can ask with some authority: why is this list here at all ? Not accompanied by other fellow lists ? Now, the whole affair begins to smack of something...undesirable. Mir Harven 07:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having difficulty figuring out what encyclopedic purpose the list serves. Is it so that someone writing an article on the Church could use it as a source for "oh, and X, Y, & Z are famous Catholics"? Aside from that (which could easily be handled through the category) I don't see a purpose for it. As much as I love to see new articles on the Church, I think this one has to be a delete. -- Essjay · Talk 09:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • What's the purpose of List_of_Muslims or List of Buddhists ? I don't know-but they are here. And, it looks like: here to stay. No double standards, no, no...Mir Harven 11:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you considered nominating them for deletion instead of just asserting that they won't be deleted? -- Essjay · Talk 12:36, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
      • Are you kidding ? See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_people_by_belief, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Christians, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Jews. There are more than 30 denomination-based lists. Most of them have been hotly debated over before & there is no chance wikipedians galore who have put their efforts into making them would even contemplate removing them. Get real. Mir Harven 13:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all lists potentially longer than 1 million people, including this one. They add no value. :) — RJH 14:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, It is both very accurate and relevant. The length shouldn't matter.Gateman1997 18:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To: "23skidoo"--I had, in fact, done just what you suggested, and saved a fairly recent version of this whole category as an email I sent to my own Hotmail account. Thanks for the advice!

• Weak keep. I agree with a lot of what Essjay and RJH say but their objections could also be resolved by scaling back the list to the most prominent examples in the various categories. Listing more than 1,000 actors and actresses rather than the few dozen most highly acclaimed ones makes the list less useful rather than more useful, IMO. DS1953 03:02, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable list. JamesBurns 06:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are several people actively maintaining this list, so despite its potential size, it will be better maintained than many other lists here. If deleted, we need a comprehensive set of lists by topic (occupation/nationality/et cetera) to cover all that would otherwise be in this list. - User:Doohickey July 26, 2005
• Delete. The Category:Roman Catholics at least constrains the "membership" to notable people. If it is only a list after all then how about my grandparents, parents, us, our kids, our ... well, you get my point. And have you seen the red link farm under the Activists section? Well heck, I suppose all of my parish priests could be considered activists. And why in the world is Bobby Fischer listed under Criminals and Misfits? Who is going to patrol that kind of edit? I see lots of opportunity for mischief here. hydnjo talk 03:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Vandalism. User 70.18.211.240 has added a few names (either evidently non-Catholic ones, like Bobby Fischer or politically charged (Albanian leader Karsniqi)) with rather clear purpose of undermining list's credibility. Whatever this may be- this is becoming interesting. As if someone tries, surreptitiously, to get the list deleted. Hmmm....food for thought. Mir Harven 10:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete along with all similar lists. There is no point nor encyclopedic value to such a list. I could see a point to "List of famous Roman Catholics" (though I don't like lists and would oppose it still), but as it is, this seems to be nothing more than a list of everyone mentioned on Wikipedia who happens to be Catholic. --Kadett 04:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a good point and that's why Category:Roman Catholics does the job so well. By definition, anyone in this category would have an article and thus be notable. hydnjo talk 16:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the difference is that you can organize it better than in categories. By occupation, by time period, etc. gren 19:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories can be rich in subcategories (this one has sixteen) which serve the same purpose. Also, a person can easily reside in more than one subcategory and with much better visibity than in a list. hydnjo talk 22:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete If a list is to be encyclopaedic it must have the potential to be comprehensive and complete. By definition this list can never be either.--Porturology 04:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

To all concerned--I did put Bobby Fischer in as a misfit by mistake because I forgot that the issue was the religion (and he is not Catholic, although he IS a MISFIT) of the individual not the character; also I realized my mistake with Krasniqi and deleted it, but it was on my mind and I am planning to email the Attorney General and whoever else I can think of regarding this Florin Krasniqi who has been an arms trafficker for the past DECADE and it is not a secret that he wants to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of its remaining Serbs; this so bothered me that I posted him, but then realized that he is a Muslim and deleted it. Sorry!! R. Sieger (rms125a@hotmail.com) (aka 70.18.207.16 with these [1] contribs.)

• I swear that I did not hire this dude to support my position in favor of this VfD. ;-) hydnjo talk 00:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This list is useful, even if it potentially duplicates much of the functionality of Category:Roman Catholics. Furthermore, it is unreasonable to propose it for deletion and not the dozens of other lists. If one really wants to delete this, one should first develop a concensus to Catergory-ify and delete _all_ lists, and begin executing that concensus on less-controversial lists. Rast 00:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep While I believe lists do not belong in an Encyclopedia, they are now an engrained part of Wikipedia. If any list has any right to exist, this one should. However, it mostly seems to be a list of famous or notable Roman Catholics. I vote keep, but I strongly encourage consideration of "Notable Roman Catholics".

(above unsigned comment by Jvraba) NoSeptember

• Does that mean no red links allowed? If so, then I agree with you. hydnjo talk

I think it is fairly obvious that this list will not be deleted. But- the point is how to arrange it ? I guess it cannot stay in this form, so, to avoid possible "mammothing", it would be good to break it into a few lists. Just- I don't see how. If a division would be along national lines (Spanish, US, Dutch,..), it just creates more confusion. If it's vocational/professional (writers, scientists, politicians,..)- the naming is problematic (Marcel Proust was an author who was, techically, a Catholic. But, he was not a "Catholic author".). I'd say the list has to be divided. But, how ? Mir Harven 17:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and break. It's obviously not unmaintainable, as people have been maintaining it—it's hard to patrol for vandals and self-promoters, yes, but the alternative seems POV-ish. If there are lists of Lutherans, Jews, Muslims, and others, and the Catholic list is deleted, it seems as if Catholicism is the "default" religion here, and the other lists are deviations from it. While I have an opinion on this, I don't think it ought to be asserted as fact. :.) Breaking it up will ease patrolling the pages. My kingdom for a relational database... → ( AllanBz ✎ ) 03:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and break Agree with what others say about breaking the list up. --Chris 05:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This is why categories exist, no need for a list, specially for a list with tons of nonverifiable material like this one. drini ☎ 23:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Important list User:Khanada 21:07 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep The category does not give the reference info that this list maintains i.e. if the person was/is a politician, what office do they hold? This list lets you know without going to the individual entry. Big time saver! Camille

• Strong Keep A very comprehensive list and therefore mustn't be deleted.

Strange, it's happening to an article about Catholics... there seems to be some bias.User:Cockney

• Keep Perhaps some modifications would be beneficial, though it is unnecesary to delete the article; the question of deletion is of special interest to me as a Catholic and as a contributor to the page.--Thomas Aquinas 20:32, 3 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.