Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catholic Guilt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 can't hardly believe it, but it's a keeper. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Guilt

This is an extremely notable and widely discussed concept, and as such this article needs cleanup not deletion. However it was {{prod}}ded, which gives me the excuse to bring it here. Kappa 02:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Well documented phenomena. No Guru 02:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've also got White_guilt, why not Catholic Guilt. Monkeyman 02:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism. Perhaps if Kappa feels that all these articles are notable he could expand them to prove their notability? Simply removing the Prod and CSD tags doesn't really fix the problem. James084 02:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you want to discuss other articles, please do so on my talk page, it's off-topic here. Kappa 02:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
How old does something have to be before it's no longer a neologism? I don't think "catholic guilt" is one. 108,000 hits on Google, 465 hits on Google Book Search, 501 on Amazon's "Search Inside This Book." And not that it's directly relevant to the article, but I saw Big Catholic Guilt live, and they were really good. Anyway, as noted WP has White guilt and Jewish mother stereotype, so the article is not necessarily a powder key, but what's written there at present is not worth keeping. The article on Guilt#Cultural views of guilt is rather skimpy so it could be merged over there, provided it were improved upon. Schizombie 05:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm Catholic and I can say, without a shred of guilt, this isn't encyclopedia material --Ruby 03:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Powder keg waiting to explode in edit wars, opinions, POV, and so forth. No clean way to pen a legit article such as this. --Jay(Reply) 04:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It sounds very Wiktionaryish. Outside of explaining the concept I don't know where you go with it except POV.--T. Anthony 05:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, expand. BD2412 T 05:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. As Schizombie noted, this is a widely discussed topic. Capitalistroadster 06:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Lankiveil 06:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep, without a doubt. This is both encyclopedic and expandable. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Potential for edit wars isn't a criteria for deletion. Otherwise "Jesus", "abortion" and "George W Bush" would all be removed. (oh, rename the topic to "Catholic guilt" please.) ---J.Smith 09:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Someone needs to give a reason that this violates the policy, or else the default is keep.Batmanand 11:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not really. Editors can recommend deletion based on guidelines and their own opinions. This is a discussion. PJM 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Notable and important topic. aliceinlampyland 13:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC).
  • Keep and expand. Agreed that a notable and important topic. It deserves encyclopaedic reference if only for its importance as prominent theme in modern Irish and British Catholic literature. Graham Greene in particular.--TMMABPTY 14:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I'm sorry I just need to interject here. There are a lot of you voting Keep and Expand but nobody is really taking any initiative to expand and cleanup the article. This really, really, really does not fix the problem. If it is so notable and worthy of more than the dictdef that it currently is why doesn't anyone fix it? James084 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Can't one legitimately express the opinion that the article is keepable and expandable, even if one lacks the time, motivation, or knowledge to expand it at the moment? dbtfztalk 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
My point being that if nobody ever takes the time to expand and clean up these supposed notable articles then a pretty low standard for articles becomes established. Clean them up, expand them, or delete them. James084 18:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • A Merge with Confession might suffice. I don't see it standing well on its own without bumping WP:NOR or WP:NPOV. PJM 16:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, per above. dbtfztalk 17:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, per above. A real issue, though not a simple one, with social, psychological and ethnic components in addition to the religious. Fan 18:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - one BBC article is not sufficient. If this is knwon and used term someone will create valid article later. 22:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel Vozenilek (talk • contribs)

  • Keep and expand. The phrase and stereotype absolutely exist and are not new. The extent to which the phenomenon is real, vs that to which it is a construct used by non-Catholics to stereotype Catholics, is worth recording. (Arriving at college in the 1980s, I was startled to find my (nominally Anglican) friends refer to this idea - coming from a Catholic background, I'd never heard of it!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackyR (talk • contribs)
  • Keep And you may want to add a section on that fun subset of Catholic Guilt, "Irish Catholic Guilt". I blame those nuns from grade school for all my problems, and somehow I feel guilty about that. . . FunkyChicken! 01:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand, as per above! Catholic Guilt lives! Ahhh! UncleFloyd 03:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see how this is encyclopedic, it seems to just be a term and a regurgitation of material covered in Roman Catholic Church article. -- Greaser 06:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless expanded'. Stifle 22:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
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.