Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic leaders and politicians


 * 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 delete. Arguments to the contrary are mainly in the vein of WP:USEFUL, and fail to address the policy-based arguments for deletion. Sandstein 20:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Catholic leaders and politicians

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The page is a collection of internal links in violation of WP:NOT and is a list persons only loosely associated in violation of WP:NOT. There is also no assertion of notability of the subject. The list seems like it can be automatically accomplished by the use of an appropriate category. JJLatWiki 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as violation of WP:NOT and, I agree, this should be done via category, because it's kind of an intersection between two unrelated topics. Useight 17:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure trivial intersection Corpx 19:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The list is organized and includes a particular aspect of people that is reasonable important, namely their religious beliefs. In terms of whether or not it should be a category, I could go either way. FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Reasonably important" to whom? Unlike this list, which lists Antonio Villaraegosa even though his bio page does not call him a Catholic (where it is arguably more important to be), categories are self-maintaining.  If Antonio is a Roman Catholic, he should have category of "Roman Catholic politicians" like so many others (and many more than are currently in the list we're discussing here). --JJLatWiki 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I would say that people's religion is reasonably important to well, almost everybody. If you want an example, the paper encyclopedia I have at home lists the religion of all the presidents.  I have even have that information in an Almanac.  Therefore, I see no reason to not cover this information in some way.  BTW, the content of the Antonio Villaraigosa page isn't meaningful, if it doesn't mention him being Catholic, or his relationship with the Church, I'd say that's a gross oversight on that article's part.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Putting one's religion in their bio is one thing, but maintaining a list based exclusively on this one fact is entirely different. Such a list and especially being placed on that list implies that the person's religion is one of the most important factors regarding that person.  I would be willing to bet that if you asked, most people would say that a politician's religion is less important than their stand on abortion, taxes, the war in Iraq, gun control, the war on terror, the war on drug, illegal immigration, global warming, etc, etc.  Such lists would be a policy violation because those are loose associations.  The religion of 2 different politicians is no more of a connection than being born west of the Mississippi, south of the Mason-Dixon, or if they prefer Ford trucks over Chevy.  It might be more important to them and to you, but it doesn't connect them more.  By the way, does your paper encyclopedia or almanac have a section listing all the people in the rest of the book(s) whose religion is Catholic?  --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A person's religion is widely considered one of the most important factors regarding a person. You can consider it unimportant to you, but that's only your opinion, and not supported by any kind of substantial research.  OTOH, I can easily find things like .  As for the almanac, it has less space available to it than Wikipedia, it doesn't list the Presidents of Mexico or the Emperors and Shoguns of Japan.  I'd also say being born west of the Mississippi isn't an appropriate list, but I would say being born in say, California versus being born in New York might be.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether a person's religion is important or even if it's important enough for a list. The question is whether such a list violates 1 or more of the following policies:  WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:NOR, or any others.  Is religion a significantly distinctive association to be more than "loose"?  With the vast number of Catholics in the United States, I submit that religion, and especially one of the predominant ones, is a loose association.  If the title was List of Jewish politicians in Saudi Arabia I can imagine such people would be a pretty tight-knit group.  But never an indescrimate List of Jewish politicians.  --JJLatWiki 00:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why you'd bring up NOR I don't know, there's no reason to assume that cited references to a politician's religion can't be found, when in fact, that information is widely available. Nor is there intrinsically a conclusion to be drawn from it.  Now if there were "Catholics Politicians under the thumb of the Pope" that might be something, but this isn't, so that's not a problem.  The other arguments are also unconvincing to me, though I at least see some reason for making them.  None of the examples apply, and there's absolutely a connection within an individual religion like Catholicism.  Now if it were simply "Christian" I would concur that's overbroad, though I might say the best way to do that would be to use that as a super-list to organized down by religion.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "there's absolutely a connection within an individual religion like Catholicism". Do you think there is a single person in the world who can name, pick out from a line-up, or have even seen 1% of the 70-or-so-million Catholics in the United States?  Aside from the "spiritual" connection which is a POV, can you describe the connection?  --JJLatWiki 23:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The tenets of the Catholic faith are to be found in that article. If that's not clear enough for you, I suggest you try calling your local Catholic church.  They're likely in the phonebooks.  And I can't name, pick out from a line-up nor have I seen 1% of the members of Congress.   Well, maybe I'd be able to name more than 1%, but not that much more.  That's less than a thousand people.  Heck, I couldn't identify most people on many lists on Wikipedia, from various monarchs to whatever else you could name.  Such inability means nothing. (Though why you're jumping from Catholic leaders and politicians to Catholic Americans I don't know).  FrozenPurpleCube 06:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll bet you there are many people who can name and identify many, if not all, the US Senators. What's significant about a list of US Senators is that they are all on a list that is notable before being on Wikipedia.  That list has been published and written about outside Wikipedia countless times in American history.  The list of Catholic politicians contains people who were baptised Catholic, went to Catholic church as a child or a couple times for a photo op during a campaign, converted to Catholicism, or have some other unspecified official or unofficial affiliation with some Catholic church.  That is a loose association if there ever was one.  A more meaningful association might be, US elected officials who once studied to become a Catholic priest.  Now, the reason I jumped from Catholic leaders and politicians to Catholic Americans is because you said absolutely there is a connection with an individual religion like Catholicism.  If there is such a strong connection, surely someone could pick out at least 1% of the members from a list of names or in a lineup.  --JJLatWiki 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This is much better organized than a category could be, and political controversies over the Catholicism of leaders, from James I to JFK, should make its saliency pretty plain. Kestenbaum 19:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then shouldn't the list title be, "Political leaders with controversies over their Catholicism"? Wouldn't such a title disqualify the vast majority of the entries?  Then you would have to be sure that the controversies were over their Catholicism, and not their broader Christian beliefs.  In its current form, it's far too inclusive to be meaningful.  For example; Jerry Brown, Chicago Mayors Daley, Paul Bremer, and Antonio Villaraigosa.  What is their connection other than they all purely by coincidence happen to be Catholic.  Are you saying it should be kept because you like it, it's useful, or it's interesting?  Because you didn't deny that it violates policy.  --JJLatWiki 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I deny it violates policy. Look at WP:NOT 2 which says "and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles."  This list is structured, thus it doesn't violate policy.  Religious affiliation is not a loose connection either.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think "to assist with the organisation of articles" means what you think it means, otherwise there's essentially no restriction. I could make a List of politicians whose spouse has or had cancer and claim that it's for organizational purposes.  People in a similar situation would probably have a more meaningful connection.  But it would still be a violation.  --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Cancer is a vague term that isn't usually considered an identifying characteristic.  Religion is.  FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think cancer is a vague term - See Category:Cancer survivors. I'd argue that religion is vague-er than cancer, because its a choice one makes Corpx 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - This kind of organization should be done by category, and not as an article. It is a violation of WP:NOT, and in my opinion tends to push Wikipedia in the direction "clutter" and disorganization. Not to mention the fact that there are over a 1,114,966,000 living Catholics as of 2005, and as a result, a HUGE number of Catholic politicians. Padishah5000 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is about as WP:NOT violating as it gets. The people themselves are probably notable, but the list itself is not. It could be made into a category. i  (said)  (did) 21:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two kinds of lists on Wikipedia. Lists like Nixon's Enemies List or FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives which exist to cover lists notable outside Wikipedia, and organizational lists like this one, or List of United States Senate committees which list otherwise reasonable information for organizational purposes.  I could understand an argument that the scope is too broad, but then might not something like List of United States Presidential religious affiliations be the way to handle it?  FrozenPurpleCube 02:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Religion is made an issue in presidential elections, so I can mildly see where that come from.  However, that's not the case when you make such a broad list like this to include every "leader" + politician Corpx 02:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's concern about Catholic politicans besides the US Presidency. .  I can understand a concern over the scope of this list, but the subject itself, namely the religious affiliation of individuals?  Quite valid for purposes of organization.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be split up into narrower lists if the specific group they warrants coverage. Corpx 14:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the "concern"? Is it all politicians, or just Catholic politicians who support abortion or some other thing that some Catholic church doesn't like?  If you have a List of Catholic politicians banned from taking sacrament by the American Catholic Church, that's a different story and one that could be backed up with a list published outside WP first.  --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see how any list can be more organized than a category can be, given that lists often turn into piles of POV or unsourced material. Honestly, what purpose does this or can this serve that a category cannot? CaveatLectorTalk 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although I question the viability of a category as a trivial intersection of religion & profession, there is no justification for having a incomplete list. Carlossuarez46 04:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is useless trivia. Next we will need to catogorize on if they go to church? Do they partake of the Holy Sacrament? Do they go to confession? Do they support the pontiff; it will all lead to clutter. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Identification with a specific religious affiliation is a long distance from whether or not they engage in a particular practice of a religion. The one is common in many biographical templates, the other is something I've never really seen. FrozenPurpleCube 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Occupation is also common on many bio templates, is there a List of leaders and politicians who happen to be Bankers? --JJLatWiki 16:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a potentially good idea to me, though I'd suggest sorting the list by connection such as "List of occupations of current US senators" . FrozenPurpleCube 18:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which might be an interesting idea for a table. But as a list, it is probably still a violation.  As a table, you could show their name, birthdate, birthplace, state represented, year of election, occupation, religion, marital status, number of children, previous elected offices, etc, etc.  Also note that the list we're discussing isn't titled "List of religious affiliations of current US senators".  The members of that class have a much closer association.  --JJLatWiki 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * List, table, same difference to me. If you want to work on it, go ahead.  I think it'd be quite useful to have the information represented in that form.  FrozenPurpleCube 05:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is of interest in nations where Catholicism is a minority religion. Regarding Storm's argument about whether they are "devout Catholics", might be a better focus for majority Catholic states in Latin America and Europe.  We don't "need" to categorize things further than that.  Looks like it won't be necessary to mention Vatican City in this one.  Mandsford 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a matter of being interesting. Many lists would be interesting.  It's also not a matter defining the restrictions until it becomes interesting or manageable.  It's still a collection of links based on a loose affiliation.  In actuality, it generally violates the WP:NOR policy also.  If the list has 500 names on it, you would also need up to 500 references to backup the list to satisify WP:V.  --JJLatWiki 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a difference between "of interest" and "interesting". I believe that your comment is "of interest" even if I do not believe that it is "interesting".  Mandsford 21:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems to be admitted that it might be of value to have such an article about particular countries. Please look at the list, which is so arranged. DGG (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A list of cell phone numbers of Catholic leaders and politicians arranged by country would be useful too. --JJLatWiki 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * delete unmaintainable. There are big thousands of catholic "leaders and politicians". Wikipedia is not purpose to search people for combination of their features. Otherwise it would have had a database engine. The argument that "it may be useful" is pointless. Someone may find useful to have a list of catholics born on Christmas day. Mukadderat 22:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this is a useful list for those who need to research notable Catholics. Numerous students who attend Catholic universities, high schools, and primary schools find themselves needing such lists when choosing project topics.  --Chicaneo 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL shouldnt be the only reason to keep Corpx 20:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Many lists would be "useful" even to someone in a Catholic school trying to choose a project topic. Does "useful" include a painfully incomplete and unreferenced list of notable people whose only Catholic affiliation may be that they once entered a Catholic church?  Don't you think a Catholic University should be tasked with maintaining such a list, not the editors of an encyclopedia.  --JJLatWiki 14:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.