Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will and testament of clerics (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will and testament of clerics

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article was up for deletion over a year ago and passed with a "keep", but has not had a single edit between then and my nominating it for AfD today. The article is only three sentences long and consists mostly of vague assertions which are not supported by the only cited source, the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia. "The will and testament of clerics is a controversial issue for a number of Christian denominations"? There is no evidence given of any controversy nor any explanation of what that controversy is, nor is any specific denomination mentioned in this article. "Many churches have rules on the way in which property that is owned by a cleric can be distributed on death"? That would seem to be primarily an issue for churches whose clergy have taken a vow of poverty and/or are celibate, as I would expect that churches with married clergy would allow the clergy to leave their property upon death to their spouse and/or children. If churches with married clergy do have such rules, no evidence has been provided of such rules. And with regard to the Catholic Church, which does have rules about the wills and testaments of clerics, there is no indication in this article of what those rules are. Since there was no attempt to improve the article after the last AfD, I believe it would be best to delete this article altogether, with the opportunity to re-create it if substantive, sourced content can be found later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, and like a comment in the last nomination said, this is essentially a non-subject of relevancy to nothing. It doesn't help that the closer simply gave the reason of: "The result was keep." to an outcome of obviously weak consensus. We do not create articles based on vaguely supported subjects mentioned a few times in various references (like this one) which is why there is no article for say "sharpness of knives" - Ap m h 05:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I remember this from last year. Still nothing terribly notable has been added to the article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can imagine a decent article named "Clerical property in the Catholic Church" considering the plethora of sources on that, but the current article is not about a subject worthy of its own article per rationales stated above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not very often that I vote delete, but there isn't really anything here to save. If somebody wants to write a proper article at some point, all power to them. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2023 (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.