Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amador of Portugal

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 keep‎. Star Mississippi 23:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amador of Portugal[edit]

[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 page only has one source, and I cannot find any others. Literally every claim in the article about his life and legend is unsourced. In fact, the one source that the article has states that "Nothing is known of him". Di (they-them) (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note that I can't find this person in Halbeck's A Biographical Dictionary of the Saints (1924), and it's unlikely that a person so poorly documented would have been canonized after 1924. The other source cited is a link to a Portuguese hagiology of saints, but the link doesn't even indicate in which of the four volumes of the work one is supposed to find this individual. Volume I alone is a 652-page PDF, apparently unsearchable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there were two references anyway, to which I've added a third. (There are doubtless others in Portuguese print sources). The Portuguese pdf is fully described, with volume and page numbers, in the Catalan original: I've also added that information. Nominis (the standard online French reference for saints) makes the point that even though nothing definite is now known of him he was important enough for several churches to be dedicated to him. There is nothing wrong with a legendary biography for a mediaeval saint as long it is clearly described as such. I've ce'd nfor clarity and will take a further look at points of translation soonish. Ingratis (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the improvements to the article made by Ingratis as detailed above which include providing page numbers for the reliable sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' per Ingratis. St Anselm (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If a subject can be verified as having been canonized by the Catholic Church at any given point, that subject acquires inherent notability. This doesn't mean Wikipedia includes suggestions favoring the veracity of any claims associated with that subject or even supports the claim that they were a real person, but canonization in any major Christian body is enough to lend necessary notability regardless. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:12, 14 December 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.