Talk:List of people declared Servants of God under Pope Francis

Maybe use tables?
I would suggest changing the format of this article to use tables, as it would be much clearer. Iamoctopus (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources - "Waiting for approval"
Perhaps some names could be listed with appropriate sources if available so as to ensure the article remains factual. 115.64.163.13 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes--keyword being "appropriate" sources, which I didn't find in the list. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Other Catholic Candidates
An extensive list of people who are NOT Candidates for sainthood was added earlier today without any discussion. I have reverted it as per the Normal WP:BRD cycle. The header of the new section stated
 * "The following is a list of other candidates who have not yet been recognized by the Catholic Church as "Servants of God" but regarded as people who led holy and edifying lives that may (or might never be) proposed for formal beatification and canonization."

This is, therefore, a purely speculative list, with no inclusion or exclusion criteria whatsoever, and no means of assessing whether someone should be included or excluded other than individuals PoV. I am. therefore Opposed to the inclusion of such a list

As stated at Stand-alone lists, Notability and Manual of Style/Lists:- - Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All lists must have clearly defined inclusion criteria
 * Every entry should meet the notability criteria for its own article.
 * All items on the list must follow Wikipedia's core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view


 * User:Grace be with you Please revert your recent re-addition of the "Other Catholic Candidates" section, and enter a discussion here, as to how such a list complies with the above mentioned policies - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Grace be with you I see you have further expanded the "Other Catholic Candidates", but have not joined this discussion as to whether the section should be kept or deleted. Please explain how you think this list complies with the policies listed above - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it is consistent with WP:BRD at this stage to remove the list "other catholic candidates", until an objective criterion for inclusion has been formulated. Brienanni (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I also oppose inclusion of this information, now or ever. If someone is not officially a candidate for sainthood he/she does not belong in this list. As stated above, selection of such individuals is purely subjective based on one editor's opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

non-WP:RS
newsaints.faithweb.com is a clearly non-reliable source and needs to be excised from this article. We have no business relying so heavily upon it for all the alleged citations herein. 2600:8800:1880:91E:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 03:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources, again
This article has an appalling lack of sources. It has had a global unsourced tag up for a year. Rather than nominate the article for deletion, my plan is to begin removing unsourced content systematically. I plan to begin with the oldest unsourced entries that don't have a separate Wikipedia article that supports their sainthood status. I'll tag newer entries and remove if there is no attempt at sourcing within one month. Please keep in mind that the global tag has been up for a year, which should be sufficient notice to any editor who add new entries without a source. Sundayclose (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)