Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Catholic bishops (2nd nomination)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

List of oldest Catholic bishops

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I have nominated this page nearly two years ago for deletion (Articles for deletion/List of oldest Catholic bishops), and the result then was no consensus. Since I still don't see any notability for the subject of this list, I am renominating it now. Basically, this list, while verifiable, fails WP:NOT as a "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". Being a catholic bishop is notable: being one of the hundred oldest catholics bishops is not notable. The age of bishops (apart from their retirement age) is completely inconsequential to their notability or work. We could produce "list of oldest living X" for any kind of profession or title, and almost all of them would be failing WP:NOT as well (and I am ware that similar articles exist, like List of oldest living Major League Baseball players or List of oldest surviving professional wrestlers: I have the same reservations about those). Fram (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The level of detail moves this page from the trivial to the useful. Limited to 100 names, so not open-ended and unwieldy. A useful source of in-links for standing articles. All in all, a well-done page which adds to our information pool. Carrite (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ANd why is it useful to have these 100 links to bishops, instead of 10O others? What makes this selection useful? Fram (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as trivia. A good example of how it is possible for information to be fully verifiable but still not encyclopedic.  Unclear what the point of the article is, if indeed it even has one.  Why not a list of bishops by shoe size?  Or oldest pastry chefs? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Follows all guidelines for a wikipedia list. Maybe topic may not be important as other list but is still more useful than a list about video games or something as trivial
 * But it violates WP:NOT, which is a policy. Fram (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator fails to convince that the members of a "for life" (per se notable, for that matter) religious office are an unencyclopedic cross-characterization. No policy-based reason for deletion articulated by any delete !voter so far, and I don't expect any to materialize. Content is verifiable, useful, and cannot be replicated by categories. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument has nothing to do with the reason for deletion. The members are notable, yes, no one denies that. But why are the oldest of them a special group that should have its own list? While it could just as well be replicated by categories, it would be just as bad, so that's not an argument either. You don't argue what the usefulness is of this list, or why a specific list solely for the oldest members is an encyclopedic characterization. Your arguments, basically, are irrelevant. What's the difference between this list and a list of all bishops born in January? The latter would be just as verifiable and probably just as useful, and should be deleted on sight as well. Fram (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep A useful and verifiable resource. Not trivial. JASpencer (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Useful how? No one has indicated how it is useful, or given any verifiable evidence that it has been of use, or that the same type of listing is a typical subject in reliable independent sources. Just claiming that it is useful is as empty as claiming that something is notable: without explanation of the why and how, it is an empty argument. Fram (talk) 20:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cannot see any purpose of this article. The information are nicely referenced, but it does not mean that the article is useful. Niky cz (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep useful information. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Useful for what, exactly? Fram (talk) 06:47, 15 September 2010 (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.