Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  →TSU tp* 06:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Completing nomination on behalf of IP user. Reason given on talk page is: "Article exists solely to promote the dogma that human science was advanced because of, rather than despite, the Roman Catholic Church. See the sole author's bizarre polemic on the talk page: 'The Church conceives of itself as Catholic because that is the nature of the Church founded by Christ. This universality through space and time is a work in progress and was set in motion by Christ's command to make disciples of all nations. The Church had this mandate from the beginning. I remain neutral. jcgoble3 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The IP user provides no rationale for the deletion of the article other than the fact that he seems to disagree with it. IMO article is a valuable contribution to the Wikipedia project. Akasseb (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete A very one-sided article without proper sources. I don't think it can be rescued. Night of the Big Wind  talk  23:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * keep- has some huge POV issues, but these can be fixed through proper editing. The contributions made to science by the Roman Catholic church are indisputably a topic that can and should be covered here. Reyk  YO!  00:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There is considerable overlap with List of Catholic scientists and this should be taken into account. Also it is not really restricted to clerics as people like Galileo are listed. However, I think it is a notable topic. Pehaps it should be moved to Contribution of Catholicism to Science and cut the lists as they are in List of Catholic scientists. The two articles should not be left as they are and this is the weakest. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Galileo was a cleric, in fact (canon of Brescia and Pisa, from 1630). However, he is not included on the list. -- 202.124.72.178 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – There's a few promotional sentences that could be removed, but any bias that still remains is surely fixable. Lists which have any reasonable and objective inclusion criterion provide an additional way for people to access Wikipedia content. Any problem is with the introductory text, in my opinion. Deducing that the names of the moon craters show the 'Church's commitment to astronomy' can be reworded. I would rephrase the sentence to take out the last four words. I'd not want the title to be Contribution of Catholicism to science since we would then be asking if it was a net positive, and this could get us far afield. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep after severe pruning to remove POV-gush. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep. Useful list with well-defined inclusion criterion. Nomination seems to be based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Serious pruning of the intro was desirable (I have now pruned it), and the list might be broadened to non-Catholic clerics; but that's not a matter for AfD. -- 202.124.72.178 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content of the article may violate WP:NPOV and may even be incorrect, but the topic itself is notable and relevant enough. --User: Kris159 (talk | legacy) 06:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the responses here and the recent changes made I think the AfD tag can be removed from the article. Since I have been the main editor of the article, however, I will let someone else make that edit.Akasseb (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think WP:SNOW applies (and indeed that this should never have been nominated), but there has been one !vote for deletion (poorly explained though it is). I think that means the AfD has to run its course. -- 202.124.75.59 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am fairly new to this process. What is the normal course? Right now the AfD tag is a black eye on the article meant to call into question its credibility. It is fairly obvious that the IP user who nominated the article for deletion did so simply because he does not like it.Akasseb (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion lasts for 7 days and then an administrator, who, unlike me, has not commented to the discussion, will come along and close the discussion. It may be closed early if the consensus is clear. Meanwhile, could some one clarify my points above? Could this list of clerics be merged into the wider List of Catholic scientists? It seems to me that it could, so my !vote is for merge.-- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would argue against a merge; the important thing is that the figures here are clerics, while the other list is people who happen to be Catholic. Both lists are useful, although possibly the other list could be restricted to non-clerics. -- 202.124.72.127 (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I too am against merging the articles. The list of cleric-scientists has a certain distinctness and clarity that must be preserved. The general list of Catholic scientists is intended to be all-encompassing. I would consider the idea of limiting the second list to lay Catholic scientists, but I think it works better as a master list (it just needs to be expanded).Akasseb (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as a perfectly notable topic. Some of the list might be pruned, but AfD is not meant for pushing along the normal editing process.  I can't see how anybody could look at this article and reasonably conclude that it violates WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG, or WP:LIST for lack of notability.  That R.C. clerics have been notable scientists is not new history, that is, this article is not an original idea and can be easily sourced if one searched online. Having been nominated at AfD is not a 'black eye' - there are plenty of GAs that have been nominated in the past for deletion; I even edited one article that went from speedy deletion to the front page's DYK section in three days -- although it is unfriendly.  NPOV content can likewise be removed through the ordinary process.  Perhaps the only remaining issue is that this article could become fodder for those who have the POV that the R.C. Church used to be unfriendly to science, then became friendly, but is no longer pro-science.  For that issue, we must be concerned lest this article becomes a POV fork of the History of science, but concern does not translate into a mandate for deletion: that's why we watch pages. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correction for the record: it took 12 days (not three) to go from proposed speedy deletion to Did You Know? Bearian (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Several articles have gone from AfD to DYK. Bird Neighbors is one of the more recent. -- 202.124.75.87 (talk) 09:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – Normally I'd be a little skeptical of such a cross-combination of categories, but I do known that Jesuits and the like have played a significant role in astronomical observation and discovery. A good example is Angelo Secchi. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2012 (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.