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The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SD0001 ( talk) 07:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Princeps pastorum

Princeps pastorum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't have sufficient RS coverage to justify notability, consider merge with Pope John XXIII xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 23:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC) -- self-cross out per withdraw xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 16:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 23:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep--it isn't suitable for merging into the list article, too much information; also it may be notable; no sign that offline sources have been utilized prior to the nomination. Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 04:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Comment the burden of proof of notability is on the side of keep. I am open to be convinced. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 04:47, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Another way is to see this ngram graph. To check for notability, you need to look for print sources published in the year of the peak. This is considerably more difficult without access to an academic library because it peaked prior to the internet.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Surely common sense and basic general knowledge tell us that it is impossible for a papal encyclical to be issued without attracting significant coverage in independent reliable sources? I have added a few such sources to the article, but have only scratched the surface of those available. Phil Bridger ( talk) 13:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep as per the multiple reliable sources references added to the article so that the subject clearly passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 ( talk) 17:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep As with any Papal encyclical it is extensively discussed for many years, albeit almost exclusively in the Catholic press, or books by Catholics about Catholicism. It does therefore have a certain ‘in-universe’ quality to it, but I don’t think its notability is in doubt. Mccapra ( talk) 18:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment per new references added by @ Phil Bridger: in these revisions, I believe the current page has demonstrated the GNG with sufficient RS. I hereby Withdraw my delete nomination. Thank you for adding the references. Coming from a background of not super familiar with the Catholics, editors like me can only make assessment on the notability based on what's on the page, therefore I maintain my reason of nomination at the time it was nominated, but as of now I am happy the newly provided references has put the page on a status it deserves. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 16:03, 29 May 2020 (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.