Talk:List of people declared Servants of God under Pope Francis

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Saints / Catholicism Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).

I would suggest changing the format of this article to use tables, as it would be much clearer. Iamoctopus (talk) 14:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps some names could be listed with appropriate sources if available so as to ensure the article remains factual. 115.64.163.13 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes--keyword being "appropriate" sources, which I didn't find in the list. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An extensive list of people who are NOT Candidates for sainthood was added earlier today without any discussion. I have reverted it as per the Normal

"The following is a list of other candidates who have not yet been recognized by the Catholic Church as "Servants of God" but regarded as people who led holy and edifying lives that may (or might never be) proposed for formal beatification and canonization."

This is, therefore, a purely speculative list, with no inclusion or exclusion criteria whatsoever, and no means of assessing whether someone should be included or excluded other than individuals PoV.
I am. therefore Opposed to the inclusion of such a list

As stated at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list:-

• All lists must have clearly defined inclusion criteria
• Every entry should meet the notability criteria for its own article.
• All items on the list must follow Wikipedia's core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view

- Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grace be with you Please revert your recent re-addition of the "Other Catholic Candidates" section, and enter a discussion here, as to how such a list complies with the above mentioned policies - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grace be with you I see you have further expanded the "Other Catholic Candidates", but have not joined this discussion as to whether the section should be kept or deleted.
Please explain how you think this list complies with the policies listed above - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is consistent with

I also oppose inclusion of this information, now or ever. If someone is not officially a candidate for sainthood he/she does not belong in this list. As stated above, selection of such individuals is purely subjective based on one editor's opinion. Sundayclose (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

newsaints.faithweb.com is a clearly non-

This article has an appalling lack of sources. It has had a global unsourced tag up for a year. Rather than nominate the article for deletion, my plan is to begin removing unsourced content systematically. I plan to begin with the oldest unsourced entries that don't have a separate Wikipedia article that supports their sainthood status. I'll tag newer entries and remove if there is no attempt at sourcing within one month. Please keep in mind that the global tag has been up for a year, which should be sufficient notice to any editor who add new entries without a source. Sundayclose (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]