Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genocidal Saints

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genocidal Saints[edit]

The title is inherently POV and invites anti-Catholic polemics Ruby 05:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title is not specific to the Catholic Church, and invites anybody to list war criminals who have been officially recognized as 'saints' by an organized religion. M dorothy

Then it's anti-Christian nonsense as Buddhist saints would be called boddhisatvas and Sufi saints are unlikely to ever come close to fitting. (Or even have articles)--T. Anthony 07:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, did these war criminals get convicted at The Hague or do we just assume they are guilty until proven innocent? Ruby 05:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a response to the previous comment.

Delete this useless, hopelessly POV article. To my knowledge, the exact concept of a "saint" only exists in Christianity... Grandmasterka 06:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It just occurred to me that this would make a great name for a heavy metal band. Grandmasterka 09:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this POV nonsense that cannot otherwise be cleaned up. --Kinu 06:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo ·· 06:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that burning people at the stake is, by modern standards, a war crime or crime against humanity.M dorothy

You should've called it "saints who committed war crimes" then. I'm not sure that'd work either, but "genocide" means trying to murder an entire group of people. Thomas More may have ideally wanted Protestantism to be gone from England, but I don't think murdering them all was his primary method. (His son-in-law was a reconvert from Lutheranism I think) I doubt Charles I would fit either, but if he would I'd assume it'd be against some American Indian people like Powhatan's or something.--T. Anthony 07:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary article lists "saints" of many religions.M dorothy
Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. --Aaron 07:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Blatant POV crap. Reyk 07:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inflammatory POV. Blnguyen 07:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Thomas More burning six people at the stake doesn't even qualify for a "genocide" unless those six were the last survivors or a significant fraction of an entire race of humans, which I doubt. Delete
Delete Also do Anglicans really consider Charles I a saint? And where is Nicholas II of Russia?(Possibly the only person I can think of cannonized in any religion who may fit. Although there might be some other cannonized monarchs who fit)--T. Anthony 07:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough candidates for a start. How about Atrocities of religious figures instead. Tyrenius 13:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. While I agree with Grandmasterka that this would make an awesome name for a band, it does nothing but make for an inflammatory POV article as it exists now. Alternately, Tyrenius' suggestion works as well.--み使い Mitsukai 14:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{POV-title}} Avi 16:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Strongly notable, essential article for Main Page. --Westmills 16:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism (given that the article attempts to define the phrase "Genocidal Saints" as meaning something other than "saints who have committed or attempted to commit genocide" and Google returns no hits for the phrase). "Genocide" and "war crimes" do not mean the same thing. Ergot 16:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While quite a few saints acted pretty un-saintly this article isn't nothing by a rant. Pavel Vozenilek 21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have to concede that the title doesn't really fit the examples, and I can't come up with any truly genocidal saints (I'm sure there are some). Those who want to use this as a band name are welcome to it. If I delete the title from Wikipedia, I guess I'm also withdrawing it from the public domain, so you are free to slap a copyright on it. I am having trouble coming up with a short name that would better describe these Tainted Saints. "Atrocities of religious figures" would bring in thousands of popes, cardinals and whatever that engaged in war crimes, but were never made saints. It would also bring in the Protestants like Cromwell who did stuff that was just as bad, but, so far as I know, have never been declared "saints" by any religion.M dorothy

"Saints who committed war crimes" is pretty long, and it suffers from the limitation that it seems to exclude crimes against humanity outside of war, which better describes the two examples I have listed. I have considered Nicholas II, who would be more of a war criminal. The Wikipedia article on him does not, however, mention anything about him that I would consider a war crime, so this has to wait until I do outside research.M dorothy
Delete per nom. Even I can't imagine a way to salvage this one. Turnstep 03:30, 14 February 2006 (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.