Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Catholic activists

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 Delete. It's highly unusual for me to find BLP concerns overwhelming (WP has many other admins on the prowl for that sort of thing), but I do think they are predominate here. This list is lightly sourced, intermixes individuals of very different viewpoints without proper differentiation, and just doesn't seem to have an overarching raison d'etre. I think Cardinal Sin would be amazed to find himself on a list with Mrs. Schlafly (and vice versa.) Once one removes the problematic additions to this list, there is nothing left. An article might well be able to exist on this topic, but it should best begin afresh, with rigorous sourcing, and a more firm focus. Xoloz (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Catholic activists[edit]

Arguably an indiscriminate collection of people (WP:NOT), most are unsourced (WP:V) and many are living people (WP:BLP). Labelling someone as an "activist" can be POV (WP:POV). I'm not sure why it has an admitted US bias, and the list is redundant given Category:Roman Catholic activists. violet/riga (t) 11:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not an indiscriminate collection, and categories do not make lists redundant (see WP:CLS; WP:V remains something of a problem. Please explain how "activist" is POV - I'm very curious. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some people would not wish to be called an "activist" and would not class themselves as such. What do you have to have done to be called an activist? violet/riga (t) 09:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Indiscriminate collection of people; unsourced and POV. It's also redundant because it's focus is predominantly on US based "activists". Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 11:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Categories and lists are not redundant but complementary. The problems described above of "unsourced" are precisely why a list is sometimes appropriate when a category is not. I note that "Catholic activists" is unfortunately vague both as a category and a list: Are they activists for Catholicism, or are they simply activists who are Catholic? --Lquilter (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to what I think is the meaning, Catholic social activists. DGG (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. The list is not just anybody who happens to call themselves Catholic, but people notable to Catholicism itself. A rename may be in order. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work to narrow topic focus, but that can be done in editing. Mbisanz (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2007 (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.