Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of 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.  Sandstein  09:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops

List of participants at the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

List of participants of a non-notable meeting that does not even have an article. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a notable meeting, an article has not been made yet but i plan to make one. See the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops and its accompanying list of participants. Jgefd (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there is a page for the synod: Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops Jgefd (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – At this time. However, I would recommend that we move the piece to Jgefd WP:USERSUBPAGE to continue to work, so all the work done is not lost, and can be resubmitted when the article Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops is completed. Just a thought. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep based on the Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops being created. Nice work Jgefd. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notable assembly that does now have an article (and which amazes me that it did not already. LadyofShalott 04:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This seems to be a general assembly of leaders of the Catholic Church, one level lower than the extremely rare General Councils. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron, LadyofShalott, Shoessss, and Jgefd:, going off of Peterkingiron's comments, its roughly the difference between a university board of trustees and a university president's giving circle. The former actually has authority, the latter meets infrequently to give their opinions to the president and the opinions get mentioned in a document and are promptly forgotten about for a few hundred years. General synods in the modern sense have no governing authority within the Catholic Church and they only make reccomendations to the pope, who is then in charge of formulating the outcome of the discussions in a document. Its the Catholic equivalent of a focus group for bishops. This meeting might have been significant because of the Ratzinger factor and because it wasn't regularly scheduled, and the fact that the CCC came as an idea from it. I'm currently not sure we need a list of the participants, though. I haven't made up my mind yet, but given the current state of the list, I am leaning draftify so that it can be better completed and have sourcing added to explain the significance of the bishop groupings, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Also pinging Vanjagenije, since I missed them in the first round. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The conference is notable; the list of participants is not separately notable. This is true even for the most important conferences. Unjustified split. DGG ( talk ) 19:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete after thinking this through, I do not believe participation as a group in a general synod is notable for a list. While this was arguably the most important General Synod held since Paul VI created them following the Second Vatican Council, the participants themselves lack notability as a group, but rather the event has notability. There is the option of a merger to the event, but I think that would be stylistically undesirable given the number of participants. Finally, the last consideration I would have would be whether or not participation at the synod would merit a mention in all of the participants articles. In some of them it might, because either it was the first action they took as a bishop in the wider Catholic Church beyond their diocese or because they were a significant participant. For the vast majority of these individuals, however, participation in the synod would not merit inclusion in their own articles as it was pretty routine work for a bishop. As such, I do not see why the total list merits an article on its own. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It strike me that this is the nearest thing the Catholic Church has to a Parliament. However it is presumably a short-lived affair, which does not require the fuller treatment of a Parliament. This feels to me a lot more significant than an academic conference or a focus group. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron, it is most explicitly not anything at all like a parliament. The closest thing to that would be the College of Cardinals or the Roman Curia taken as a whole. The Catholic Church is not governed by a synod like members of the Orthodox communions or some of the Protestant communions. It is governed universally by the pope and in each diocese directly by the diocesan bishop. The pope is the sole universal legislator of the Catholic Church. Even when ecumenical councils are called, in practice the pope alone is responsible for the enacting the legislation that implements the decrees of the council. This particular synod was extremely significant because it came up with the idea for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but the decision to move forward with it was ultimately the choice of John Paul II, who as pope was responsible for writing the concluding document of the synod. Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church explains it well when it says: As constituted by Pope Paul VI, the Synod of the Bishops is a form not of collegial governance of the Church, but of collaborating with the primatial function of the Pope. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- fails WP:LISTN; no notability for the group has been established. The event itself may be notable, but it does not extend to the group of individual participants. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just merge to Second Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, summarizing the invitees and fraternal delegates? The main article isn't that long. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I don't see why this is being nominated for deletion when the equivalent List of participants at the Third Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops has existed for over two years without challenge. I say keep because although merging it into the main article isn't a bad idea, I think adding a list of this length to that article would I think distract from the information on the Synod itself. Someone above said the participants are each notable, but just not as a group. But with that criteria, shouldn't every list article be nominated for deletion? Jgefd (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems to be a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That list should probably be deleted too, especially considering as of yet, it is significantly less significant than the extraordinary synod we are currently discussing. The participants are each notable because they are all bishops and Wikipedia tends to consider virtually every bishop notable. That doesn't make the group as a whole notable. We already have an article on the event, we don't need a list naming every minor participant in a synod that was dominated by one man. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment -- This is just a list article and harmless. If we were talking about a category, I would suggest that it was causing clutter, but that is not the case here. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2017 (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.