Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian


 * 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. Rename discussion can take place elsewhere. (non-admin closure)  TB randley  18:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

List of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are so many problems with this article that I cannot see how it can be fixed. First, it consists only of links to other WP articles that almost all say something completely different from this list article. Just to give one example out of many I could quote, this article says "Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia" and gives an exact date and a place for their martyrdom - October 11, 285, Gaul. When you click on the blue link on those names it takes you to article Nicasius, Quirinus, Scubiculus, and Pientia where the lead says "Their historicity is uncertain, and "no trustworthy historical reports of [them] exist." I have checked all the links in this article, not a single article linked to actually supports the flat assertions here that "so-and-so" was a "Christian martyr killed during the reign of Diocletian" at the place and on the day given, all of these are "traditions" or legends and in many cases,as in the one above, there are serious doubts as to whether there was actually such a person at all. I asked on WP:NPOVN if users felt that this article, and one other, were neutral and the consensus was "no". I asked on WP:RSN if it was OK for this article not to quote any source except to link to other WP articles that say something completely different to the statements here and the answer was "no". I didn't need to ask at WP:NORN if it was felt that it contains original research as anyone can see that it does - on the talk page user Cynwolfe asked on 1 August 2011 "where did you get the names? How did you determine that each of these individuals was a victim of the Diocletianic Persecution?" and got the answer "Um, I googled Diocletian, persecution, and list." []The very precise days of these supposed martyrdoms given in the article are taken by using their saints' days as the day of death, a highly dubious procedure to say the least. I cannot imagine how the year was arrived at except that somebody just made it up. The much better article Diocletianic Persecution says "Of the surviving martyrs' acts, only those of Agnes, Sebastian, Felix and Adauctus, and Marcellinus and Peter are even remotely historical", with a reference. So of these fifty or so names, there are six that may have some historical truth to them. Finally, as user Cynwolfe has noted during the discussions on WP:RSN, even the name of this article is no good, as it is a list of supposed martyrs, "and not a list of Christians killed during the reign of Diocletian in boating accidents and boar hunts and street brawls. Or perhaps even executed for actual crimes".

I will stop now or this will turn into a wall of text that no one will read but if anyone wants any more information about how this article does not represent the questions of historicity it raises I will be glad to amplify.Smeat75 (talk) 23:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't see a consensus at WP:NPOVN that this article is not neutral. I have no problem with a name change - e.g. List of Christians martyred during the reign of Diocletian - but I don't see why every person (or date) on the list needs to be historical. Lots of lists of martyrs in reliable sources have traditional dates. StAnselm (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename/refocus As I said on talk there, that this is a legendary list is a given. But so is the list of Greek goddesses. Being a legend does not imply not being included in Wikipedia, but it must be qualified as legend/tradition rather than historical. History2007 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether they are historical or legendary figures is irrelevant--the ones who have been recognized as saints are notable--even if the notability isa s purely fictional characters. The articles on them give the evidence, and as long saswe keep this to those that have WP articles, it's as good as any other list. (I would agree with changing killed to martyred, which is what is actually meant)  DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rename and define scope. I have no problem with a list of Christian martyrs, but "Christians killed" has to go. The current article fails to meet several criteria of WP:SAL. A standalone list is subject to the same standards of verifiability and OR as any other article. If content is challenged, it requires a citation. Synthesis is an aspect of OR; if the list includes figures who aren't recognized as martyrs by the Church, the inclusion of such figures advances a conclusion not present in the sources used to compile the main articles on each. To avoid synthesis, each figure needs to described as historical/legendary, or as accepted by the Church or just a part of the narrative tradition. The dates need to be identified as actual dates of death, or observances from a religious calendar. In regard to these points, I endorse most of what John Carter said here. A well written lead section, the guideline says, is of particular importance to stand-alone lists. The intro to this list is a summary from Diocletianic Persecution, which is defined as the period from 303 to 313. The list includes figures from the entirety of Diocletian's reign. The intro doesn't deal with specific issues of historicity, or what the criteria for inclusion are. WP:SLC: Selection criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed …, membership criteria should be based on reliable sources. So while I don't necessarily support deletion, I also can't support keeping it in its current misguided state. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can see that there is not going to be consensus for deleting the article and hope that those who have commented here will help me "fix" it once this discussion is closed. I agree with History2007 and Cynwolfe, the problem is not that it lists legendary figures but that it does not distinguish between fact and fiction. I would also ask that people help me if they can on the article Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, which is very poor. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a whole series of POV-oriented persecution articles that are simply appalling. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep with a major rewrite. There are standard lists of martyrs, most Notably Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History (4th Century) and Fox's Book of Martyrs (1536), both of which have a chapter covering the time of Diocletian.  Those two works should be the starting point, with addenda for additional martyrs if necessary.  Listmeister (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Keep per StAnselm and DGG. I don't see what can't be fixed with ordinary editing.  Whole books have been written with lists about this topic, and a list like this keeps all of the important information in one place, for which a category would not be as useful. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lot could be done in terms of rewriting, renaming, refocusing etc., but I don't think deletion is one of those things. This article simply needs improvement (though I'm not convinced it needs a whole lot, a group of three or four editors could knock this out in an afternoon). MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2013 (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.