Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of devotees of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux

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 merge to Saint Thérèse of Lisieux#Legacy. We have a fairly straightforward consensus to do something with this list, with most comments in favor of deletion or merging. The late-coming suggestion to merge into Saint Thérèse of Lisieux#Legacy has an equal number of supporters as outright deletion, and has convinced at least one early keep !voter to change their mind. So, based on the principle that no consensus should lean towards keeping content rather than deleting it, I will close this as Merge. Please redirect to Saint Thérèse of Lisieux once the content has been incorporated into that article. ST47 (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of devotees of Saint Thérèse of Lisieux

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Shouldn't this be just a category? By the way, I don't think other lists like this exist. I Googled "list of devotees" and found just this article. Imagine if we had a list like this for every saint and every divinity! --Bageense^(disc.) 15:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep No rationale for deletion is offered. Why shouldn't we have this list? At least as a list it can be properly sourced; if it's a category we'll have all sorts of nonsense added and taken out of it. I can well imagine having an article of this sort for every saint, and think it would be fine. Mccapra (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no valid rationale for deletion has been presented, whether or not one is possible. "Shouldn't this just be a category?" See WP:NOTDUP. "I don't think other lists like this exist." See WP:OTHERSTUFF. These are really the kinds of questions one should be presenting on a talk page to other editors, not remotely a reasonable basis for starting bureaucratic deletion procedures. postdlf (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf, How could I cancel the nomination then. --Bageense^(disc.) 16:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bageense: You can add a comment below your nomination indicating that you have withdrawn it, and an admin who has not participated may speedy close it if there is no support for deletion at that time. postdlf (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of no clear importance - WP:LISTCRUFT, trivial, non-notable list of interest to a limited number of people - WP:INDISCRIMINATE, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - WP:LISTCRITERIA, does not demonstrate "encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence" - also note: WP:LISTPEOPLE, "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion" (also WP:BLPCAT & WP:CAT/R, category guidelines apply to lists) - Epinoia (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: but it isn’t indiscriminate. It’s highly focused. You say “special care must be taken...” which implies that it hasn’t been, but the sourcing of the article clearly shows that it has. And how can you describe the list as ‘trivial, non-notable’ when everyone in it is bluelinked? You may think devotion to a saint is trivial, but a while list of notable people thought otherwise and went in the record to say so. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good! I'm no longer canceling this proposal. --Bageense^(disc.) 22:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If we allow this we would have to allow a similar article for every one of thousands of Catholic saints. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: - if we allow this we would have to allow other properly-sourced lists about other notable people. Why is this a bad thing? Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only deletion-worthy question I see is whether “devotee” is sufficiently definable with a meaningful inclusion threshold, or so broad as to be indiscriminate. Clearly more than just a praising quote from the supposed devotee should be required. Please let’s discuss that substantively in terms of familiarity with the subject matter; WP:VAGUEWAVEs and policy quotes without specific application aren’t helpful. postdlf (talk) 17:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @Postdlf:. We should focus on the sourcing. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was actually talking more about inclusion criteria, basically what kind of sourced statement/fact would justify an entry being added to this list. postdlf (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Postdlf, The inclusion, if relevant enough, should be in the biographies of the devotees. This list of devotees is like an inverted article. Instead of mentioning people's faith in their respective biographies, you have the faith and then the people who share that faith --Bageense^(disc.) 14:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't answer the question at all. What makes someone a "devotee"? What's the definition? postdlf (talk) 15:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, I don't know. Perhaps that'd be one more reason to delete the article. --Bageense^(disc.) 15:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Legacy section Saint Thérèse of Lisieux. The list is not long, it's well sourced, and it may be of interest to readers. There's no reason that the information in this list, however, should be a stand alone list. Part of what makes saints notable for encyclopedic inclusion is devotion to them even after they are dead. This content would fit nicely in the legacy section of the main article.4meter4 (talk) 12:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Merge per the very sensible suggestion of 4meter4. Mccapra (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Thérèse of Lisieux#Legacy. Notability as stand-alone list is marginal so this looks a good, pragmatic solution. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.