- 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 or more precisely there is a consensus not to delete the article, but no consensus on what else to do with it. The debate on merger can be taken forward via the article talk page, if there is any appetite to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- List of saints named Peter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redundant to List of saints, List of early Christian saints, and List of Catholic saints. I don't think we need yet another list just for saints named Peter. —Remember the dot (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This just seems like an unnecessary fork Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to St. Peter (disambiguation). Being names Peter is not a distinguishing characteristic, but it does produce ambiguity. Reywas92Talk 23:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article was split from the dab page in 2016, following this discussion. I don't quite understand the reason given – pinging Klbrain, BD2412, who perhaps can explain. This looks like an unnecessary proliferation of pages to me, so I'm leaning merge back to St. Peter (disambiguation) unless there's a compelling reason not to. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or if one must, merge). The page List of saints named Peter is a set index article, which was split from St. Peter (disambiguation) to help solve the chronic difficulty of disambiguating a saint's name, particularly when church/cathedral pages link the saint they are dedicated to. It forms part of a series of similarly-structured articles, like List of saints named Teresa (distinct from Saint Teresa), List of saints named Catherine (distinct from St. Catherine) etc. So, my view was and is that this structure works as long as the SIAs are clearly linked from the broader DAB. Klbrain (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to St. Peter (disambiguation). I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be there. Dream Focus 14:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep separate. Typically, a list of names will be separate from a disambiguation page (e.g. Mark and Mark (given name)). I doubt that there evidence that all of the names on List of saints named Peter are people who are primarily known as "Saint Peter", since the inclusion criteria for this list would appear to be saints for whom "Peter" is a component of their name. If this were to be merged anywhere, it would be to List of people named Peter, but that list is already lengthy despite being incomplete. BD2412 T 21:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- We do not normally have dabpages by forename, but this needs to be an exception. There should be an "otherpersons" link for the main page on St Peter, which should be to this article. St. Peter (disambiguation) is about places and buildings and already quite long; but it has a link to this page, which is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back in to St. Peter (disambiguation) or else convert to disambiguation page. I wasn't bothered about this being a set index until I read the discussion that created it. Apparently people were having trouble resolving incoming links to the disambiguation page so they moved these entries out of it so they did not show up in dab error reports. This does not solve the problem, it just moves it out of sight so its guaranteed never to get fixed. I don't agree with Peterkingiron and others who argue that given names lists are not normally dabs. The reason that Mark (given name) is not a dab is because people are rarely if ever referred to just as "Mark" out of context so there is unlikely to be ambiguous incoming links. "St. Peter" on the other hand is more along the lines of regnal names like Nicholas I which is a dab page. SpinningSpark 22:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to St. Peter (disambiguation) per the other people's comments סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment coming at this from another angle. A set index article should still follow the same notability guidelines as other lists, so according to WP:NLIST one way to establish notability is if the list has been discussed as a group in independent reliable sources. I've tried to do a search but only found this article. If someone can find more sources that treat them as a group, that could establish notability, but otherwise I lean merge based on the reasons others have mentioned above. OliveYouBean (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the case that lists are required to be a notable topic as a list. That is implied by NLIST at WP:CSC and explicitly stated for set index articles at WP:SIA – The list topic need not be notable in itself. Being beneficial to navigation is also an acceptable reason for existing. But I agree, merge is the best solution here. SpinningSpark 11:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems to fit the criteria for set index articles. That is, it's about saints called Peter, not anyone or anything called St. Peter. Information would be lost/harder to find and/or the suggested merged-to pages would become cluttered if there were a merge. Disambiguation pages aren't helpful if they are overwhelmed. I don't see what benefit it brings to the user of the encyclopedia to get rid of this page, even through merging.OsFish (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2022 (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.