Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indult Catholic (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 redirect to Traditionalist Catholicism. Content which does not already appear there may be merged at user discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indult Catholic

Indult Catholic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

As was noted back in 2015 on the article talk page, the subject of the article has no RS mentioning it. As of today, 2021, I could find no RS mentioning it, further proving that this article does not meet the notability criteria. There was a recent production of articles on the Tridentine Mass and its history after the publication of Traditionis custodes; despite this, I found no RS talking about "indult Catholics".
Other non-RS sources containing the expression in addition to those noted in 2015 can be found at wikt:Citations:indult Catholic and on Urban Ditionary; so maybe, as was suggested back in 2015 on the talk page, a Wiktionary entry on the subject could be created. One thing is sure, the subject does not meet the requirements to have a Wikipedia article. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect -- the subject is covered briefly in Indult and more fully in Traditionis custodes. The present article appears to be obsolete in that it has not been altered to reflect the latest papal decision. Possibly just delete if there really is no RS for the term, but I still think a redirect would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: There is no RS for this term, I have searched far and wide. If there is a redirect, that would require the article to mention the expression "indult Catholic", which is impossible as there is no RS mentioning it. Veverve (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A rename may be in order, but this is a very real phenomena that covers a couple of million Catholics and is a far bigger subject than Traditionis Custodes or the particular indults or traditional orders. JASpencer (talk) 10:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JASpencer: Have you tried WP:HEYMANN the article before deciding to keep it? Veverve (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean improve the article? The issue at the moment is time. When I have the time I'll look at it. It was created more than ten years ago and it is bound to have things that can be done to improve on it - but I've got a full time job. JASpencer (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added more sources, updated the situation with Summorum Pontificum and Traditionis Custodes, put in some context and criticism and changed the lead to be a bit more understandable and less loaded. Could do with a different name for this clear phenomena. JASpencer (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment GScholar has two hits, in a Slavic language (Russian?), not sure how useful they are. Nothing in GBooks. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to try and find consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Traditionalist Catholicism. As JASpencer said, this is a real phenomena (as evidenced by the sources provided), and I think the information in the article should be WP:PRESERVED, but the term "Indult Catholic" doesn't appear to have enough coverage for its own article and the phenomenon may be better covered in the broader context of Traditionalist Catholicism. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2021 (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.