Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Catholic bishops

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. MBisanz ^talk 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest Catholic bishops[edit]

Deletion proposed because "Age is not a defining or important characteristic of a bishop, and bishops don't get any additional attention for being one of the fifty or so oldest bishops currently. Fails WP:NOTE as a separate subject." ProD contested because "actually, sicne they do have to become inactive after a certain age, the concept is notable--see the talk page." The talk page contains nothing related to this, and the other argument is not really convincing either. Bishop (Catholic Church) contains no information on any age requirements, indicating that this is not really one of the most important aspects of bishops. Furthermore, this argument may justify a list of retired bishops, but not a list of oldest bishops. Once you are retired, it does not matter if you are 81 or 94 years old. The concept that Bishop X is one of the oldest living bishops is not one that has received any significant attention in reliable sources. Fram (talk) 10:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - The age of bishops does have one relevant meaning: if they are, or become, cardinals, it affects their ability to vote in the conclave which elects the Pope. But I'm not sure that this is such an important quality of bishops who are not currently cardinals that it saves this list from indiscriminacy. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A List of Cardinals who have no vote in the papal election would be a list with a defining, relevant characteristic (the name needs some tweaking though :-) ). The opposite (positive) list seems even more interesting. There are few bishops who become cardinals when they are already 88 years old though. Fram (talk) 10:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Making College of Cardinals tabular and sortable would pretty much encompass all the interesting information in this article. The rest is unmitigated trivia of dubious accuracy, requiring continual maintenance. Mangoe (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and interesting. Possibly a good idea to extend this down below 80, as explained above. A list of any or all bishops is not indiscriminate, as all are notable. I'd have no objection to a sortable list of them all, if we could handle a table of that size. Of course it will require maintenance, as do all Wikipedia articles about living people. they all die eventually & the articles need to be updated. DGG (talk) 04:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to say that it is NOT true that all bishops are notable. Just being a bishop is not notable by itself. TJ Spyke 17:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishops are notable (or not, but let's ignore that for now): the age of bishops isn't. It is not relevant that bishop X is 91 years old, or that we have Y bishops born in 1917 who are still alive. Fram (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, WP:ILIKEIT isn't a valuable argument to keep this article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The subject of this article has not been discussed in third-party sources so it fails the notability guidelines. Unlike the list of oldest living people, for example, this list serves to illustrate no general purpose outside of trivia. Themfromspace (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an interesting list. If kept, it should be a list of the oldest living Catholic bishops, and the date to which the calcaulation of age is made should be stated. Nevertheless, I am not convinced of natability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG's comments-Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As for the notability, this article contains a fair amount, but I believe that a List of the longest currently serving Catholic Bishops would be more significant and relevant. As for the credability, it is based on The Hierarchy of the Catholic Church, a site run by several people who devote their lives to this research. Star Garnet (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "This article contains a fair amount of notability"? Where would that be? Which evidence is provided that I have not argued against the credibility, I don't doubt that most info is easily verifiable (apart from underground churches in some countries). But the topic of this list (not the individual bishop, but the grouping of bishops according to their age) is not notable, and no one in this discussion has provided even a shred of evidence to the contrary. Fram (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can fin nothing on WP:NN, WP:BIO, WP:MOSLIST, or WP:NOT that would promote the deletion of this page. Star Garnet (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you shouldn't have a problem explaining how this meets WP:NN, i.e. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The website this list is apparently based on is not what is usually considered a reliable secondary source but a fan site (a probably 100% correct fan site though). Fram (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per policies on notability, lists, and that it is encyclopedic. This is exactly the sort of thing that Catholic students might be asked to research, and there it is, all in one place! I'm not a fan of the Roman heirarchy but that is even less than no reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. All bishops, of whatever major Christian denomination, are per se notable. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2008 (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.