Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Saint Louis Archdiocesan Auxiliary Bishops


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  20:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Saint Louis Archdiocesan Auxiliary Bishops

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The level of specificity seems odd. Not "List of Saint Louis Catholic clergy" or "List of American (all) bishops by diocese", but "List of (1) Saint Louis (2) archdiocesan (3) auxiliary (4) bishops". A Cartesian product over many dimensions. WP:SALAT. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Potential keep assuming sources can be provided; I don't study this type of thing, so I don't know where sources could be found; but such a list as this, in general, has nothing wrong with it; it could easily be renamed "list of the auxiliary bishops of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis" — the list is quite specific, likely quite referenceable, altogether NPOV, and not at all too small. If there's a problem with it being so specific, perhaps you could propose merging it with an article on bishops and archbishops (as opposed to auxiliary bishops) of St. Louis.  Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Too specialized to be of encyclopedic use. Shell    babelfish 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, too specific an intersection to be useful. The folks at catholic-hierarchy.org may find this handy though. Stifle (talk) 09:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.   -- raven1977 (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see why this isn't notable. Catholic hierarchy establishes auxiliary bishops in a specific spot in the hierarchy, and turnover is small enough that it's not going to be problematic to have a hundred or so such lists.  If there's a good merge target, that might work.  Sourcing is deficient, but the relative notability suggests to me that sources for each of these will exist, even if only in the print archive of local papers.  I would say that auxiliary bishops are probably the lowest level of catholic clergy to have presumed notability, however. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete As individual bishops, they would not be notable; in the past, we have justified articles for all bishops of the RC and other territorially organized major churches by their administrative responsibilities for a distinct large area. An auxiliary bishop does not have such responsibility--he assists the bishop or archbishop in the administration of a particularly large diocese. By analogy, mayors of large cities are notable, not deputy mayors.  In some very large dioceses the person may possibly actually have sources for notability per the general guidelines, but that would have to be shown. But this does not affect the notability of the office as a whole. But what information is there to give that could not be incorporated into the article for the archdiocese or diocese? It seems an unnecessary split. DGG (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The equivalent lists for Anglican bishops in England exist and many of those listed have articles. I do not see why this should not apply to those listed here.  The probalem is that it is not clear which of the people listed have articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have examples of such lists for England?—Largo Plazo (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: too oddly specialised to be useful or encyclopaedic. Springnuts (talk) 12:11, 26 October 2008 (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.