Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of excommunicable offences in the Catholic Church


 * 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) — UY Scuti Talk  16:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

List of excommunicable offences in the Catholic Church

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is solely a dumping-ground for the full (translated) text of canons of Ecumenical Councils. No analysis or summary is being attempted. Nor is it wikified. It is unusable as a Wikipedia article. Elizium23 (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - No sign of notability or attempt at contributing notability, just a seemingly indiscriminate list of offenses. Parsley Man (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't imagine how this could not be considered 'notable' given the obvious historic importance to these decrees in governing the Catholic church for millennia. In terms of wikifying the article or re-writing the canons to make them more readable- that is a problem that can be solved without deletion. It can also be broken into separate articles to make it more readable. I don't think it is necessary to add analysis, because it is supposed to be a list, and the articles already present on the topic of excommunication in Wikipedia already have analysis on the topic. Wikipedia has plenty of examples of articles that are lists only with little analysis, for example: List of amendments to the United States Constitution. This could not be put in wikisource, because it is only selected parts of the original sources and wikisource is meant for the full text of original sources. Reesorville (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is far too much detail to be useful to our readers, and appears to be a synthesis of sources. I'd be in favor of keeping a list if present-day, current offenses of these types. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The details could be edited down, the text simplified or rewritten, the article broken up in several pieces... there's many things that can be done. Those issues more properly belong on the article's talk page. But as far as deletion as concerned, these things don't qualify as reasons for it, I feel. To delete the article would mean that an article on this topic should not exist on wikipedia now or ever. The importance of these canons for church legal history, even the ones that are no longer applicable, is not small. Wikipedia has an article that lists the various laws passed by the Scottish parliament in the 17th century, which admittedly is of interest to very few people, but the article still properly belongs here because the topic is notable in legal history. Reesorville (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * TRANSWIKI Transwiki to Wikiversity and categorize it as Theology. Cheers! Michael Ten (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

You can reconstruct the article into an educational source and put in on Wikiversity - the question though remains, why it is that wikipedia could not have this article also? - The issues being presented here about the article's quality are not related to deletion. Reesorville (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:LISTN (notability) and WP:GNG - the Roman Catholic church has nominally 1 billion members in the world today. It has had a massive influence on the history of both the west and the world in general. The rules regarding excommunications historically formed the core of its internal ecclesiastical discipline and law. How is it not notable to list the actual offences that were historically used to place people under excommunication? No one is here offering any credible argument as to why this wouldn't be counted as notable. Reesorville (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC) "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." - https://www.amazon.com/Excommunication-Catholic-Church-Edward-Peters/dp/1932645454/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044165&sr=8-1&keywords=excommunication+in+the+catholic+church, https://www.amazon.com/Excommunication-Historical-Development-Effects-Studies/dp/0813222389/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044165&sr=8-7&keywords=excommunication+in+the+catholic+church, https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Canon-Law-Rev-Trudel/dp/1492935557/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044424&sr=8-20&keywords=excommunication+catholic+church, https://www.amazon.com/History-Courts-Procedure-Medieval-Canon/dp/0813229049/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044603&sr=8-3&keywords=history+of+church+law, https://www.amazon.com/History-Medieval-Classical-Period-1140-1234/dp/0813214912/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1480044636&sr=8-11&keywords=history+of+church+law Reesorville (talk) 03:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, how does this meet WP:LISTN? or WP:GNG?, where are the independent WP:RS that discusses this subject as a whole? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, ps. article creator cites a couple of other lists, so why can't this be here but isn't that WP:OTHERSTUFF? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - per Reesorville - I don't see how you would not feel this could be notable, considering its huge historic significance and the power the Catholic church had/has over the lives of billions of people for millennia, and you look at this category which is nowhere near complete I'm sure. It needs improvement but I do not agree it is an "indiscriminate list of offenses." Disclosure: I'm not even Catholic. —Мандичка YO 😜 05:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * PS Also, seriously? "where are the independent WP:RS that discusses this subject as a whole"? "Excommunication in the Catholic Church" even has its own category on WorldCat - there are books dating to 1520 on the subject!  —Мандичка YO 😜 05:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination just seems to be complaining about the state of the material but AFD is not cleanup. The topic is notable -- see Excommunication: Its Nature, Historical Development and Effects, for example -- and so our editing policy applies, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, somewhat reluctantly. Possibly Draftify, but I don't think we're quite in WP:TNT territory. It's undoubtedly a notable topic, but the manner of presentation/content is indeed a mess. Still, doesn't look like deletion is quite necessary. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 15:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:LISTN, thanks to for listing some publications that discuss this subject as a whole, and  for their ps comment, btw, i added my "comment" to this as it appeared, superficially, to be drifting into WP:ITSOBVIOUS territory. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article needs work to explain the context behind the rules, but that can be solved by normal editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but could certainly use cleanup and analysis from more secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom's concerns with the article are mostly valid, but these can be fixed by cleaning up the article rather than deleting it. Bradv  14:42, 29 November 2016 (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.