Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former atheists and agnostics (4th 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 Keep all. The consensus here is that the lists are well defined and sourced and useful for an encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of former atheists and agnostics[edit]

This list is ridiculous in scope because literally any human being (every human being) is born without belief in a God or deity so this list could (and should, if kept) be a list of every notable religious person alive or in history. These lists add no value whatsoever to wikipedia, aside from being a repository for the constant addition of individuals who convert from one religion to another. Really, do they serve any purpose? Ncboy2010 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating List of former atheists and agnostics and several related articles for deletion. I believe that they are not encyclopaedic and offer no real useful information that couldn't be found through the use of a category or categories. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the other articles I am nominating for deletion, If I've missed any, please let me know.

I have also decided to add these articles as they are just as wide in scope. Since humans are born without religion, why shouldn't every notable christian be in the list below? Or every notable Jew? By virtue of being within a religion implies conversion at some prior point. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this list is reasonable if limited to notorious humans who have notably changed their views. This list goes along with similar list such as: 'List of former Christians', 'List of people who converted to Christianity', 'List of converts to Hinduism', etc. While the purpose can be questioned. The information is still nice to have in list form. Why delete this list but keep others up? Bearsrule86 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2012 (CST)

Comment The list is well-sourced and has survived deletion nominations before. I do understand that lists like this are offensive for some, but at the very least I'd suggest nominated all "former" lists rather than picking on just one. Here are some other "former" lists: List of former Christians, List of former Protestants, List of former Roman Catholics, List of former Latter Day Saints. List of former Muslims, and List of former Jews. I've long been open to deleting all "former" lists, but against a "I pick this one because it offends me personally" approach. Still looking through past deletion debates I guess there is an argument for this being different in that it involves a metaphysical position rather than a religion and that we have no List of former theists or List of former deists.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pick this one over any others, I just happened across this one first. I didn't know you could nominate more than one article at a time. I am equally against the encyclopedic value of all of the former lists. In any case, thanks for the input! I'll try to list all of them together tomorrow or soon. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then Weak delete I guess. Although I do hope copies of these are kept somewhere. I put the former-atheist one in my userspace.--T. Anthony (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete. It's one of those articles that is at least somewhat unencyclopedic even with sourcing. I would agree to deleting all, but that's not the discussion that we have now (unless someone opens a central discussion or expands this to a multi-article deletion discussion formally). --Nlu (talk) 13:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In light of modification to the nomination, delete all. --Nlu (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. See, for example, the discussions in all the previous efforts to delete these lists. The assertion that the lists are "un-encyclopedic" is squarely at odds with the robust RS coverage that we see here. It is also clearly of interest -- if we dare consider such a thing -- as can be seen by the tens of thousands of readers who view these lists each month.

As far as the "it offers nothing over a cat" argument is concerned, that has been rejected at countless list AfDs. For the reasons stated in our guideline WP:NOTDUP:

"It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative. Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Consider that lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, and building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list. Deleting these rudimentary lists is a waste of these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive. When deciding whether to create or avoid a list, the existence of a category on the same topic is irrelevant." [emphasis added]

I do think that the lists should be properly maintained. But AfD is not for cleanup. I wonder whether nom read the guideline I point to, before this nomination, and whether he might not want to reconsider, as his rationale is directly at odds with the strong language in the aforementioned guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not just unencyclopaedic, but with a scope so large as to render it nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of information. The lists carry little to no value, as far as I can see. The only reason I mentioned the categories was to point out that if these lists were to be deleted, the information wouldn't be inaccessible to anyone searching for it. I think they need to be deleted because they're so ambiguous. A convert? A former christian? Nearly every notable person who's ever lived would rightly belong in at least one of these lists. I can't see a reason to not add Barrack Obama to the list of former atheists, Muhammad to the list of former Christians, or Jesus Christ to the list of former Jews just to name a few off the top of my head. see WP:NOTDIR. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDIR states:

Wikipedia is not a directory

Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for alternatives. Wikipedia articles are not:

Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists for clarification.)

Emphasis added by me.

So, I would think that converting to or from a religion would be considered a loose association between the people of these lists. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You already accept that the association is sufficient for the cats. And the guideline I quote above indicates why a list is complementary. And the tens of thousands of reader views suggests it is of interest. And the RSs suggest is is encyclopedic. You've quoted a "loosely associated topic" rule without any showing whatsoever as to why it applies more here than to any of our other lists. You assert it is "indiscriminate", when there is nothing to support that bare assertion. As to length -- these lists are far shorter than other lists we have of people ... say, "notable people from country x". As to your other points -- it's all about the sourcing. I don't know that you could properly source Obama to the list, for example, though you point to him.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be worth investigating whether there's some anti-religious motivation going on here (remember our neutrality policy). Maybe I'm seeing things wrong but there seems to be an awful lot of grouping and lumping together of people. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity despite their common origins are very different religions and it is worth mentioning and listing when someone of great notoriety converts to one or the other.

Maybe a few mergings are in order but I don't see the need to delete this many lists.

Mrld (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So that I (and the closer of this AfD) understand it better, is your !vote as to the articles "Keep or Merge"? Or Keep, with specific ones that you suggest could alternatively be merged?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator originally only nominated the list on former athiests — at which point I might have a bit of concerns about the alleged anti-religious bias. But the expansion of the nomination alleviated such concerns on my part, since the nomination is now religion-neutral. As far as I am concerned, these lists, while decently sourced, are still unencyclopedic. A hypothetical list of, for example, List of former infants may be easily attested and sourced. It'd would still be useless in an encyclopedia, even a non-paper one. --Nlu (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As a reply to the above statement by Mrld, about there being religious bias and over-grouping. I originally only nominated one, atheists and agnostics, and after T. Anthony suggested that similar articles should be placed together to prevent the appearance of discrimination or bias, I elected to add any articles that would fall under the same scope and category as the above. I don't have a bias against the religiosity of the articles, merely the wide and all-encompassing scope of them. I don't argue that there very well may be notable people who's religion has been changed in a notable way or in a way that had a large effect on a community. I would agree with a merger proposal, perhaps combining Converts to and former articles into List of converts to and from Religion for example, with appropriate redirects. Maybe not the best solution but I'd rather like that a bit better than the current form. Ncboy2010 (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. See, for example, the discussions in all the previous efforts to delete these lists. These lists have survived three previous nominations for deletion, so the users of Wikipedia must feel there is some value to keeping these lists. Abstrakt (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all "converts to" articles, there is much duplication, for example, List of Buddhists and List of converts to Buddhism contain a lot of duplication. If the act of converting is notable, it could simply be noted in the entry in List of Buddhists. Same holds for the other religions, I'd say. Yworo (talk) 09:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a benefit to groupings that allow you to see these groupings of people more readily, but understand that you have a differing view. But I'm not sure how your rationale bears on the "List of former x" articles ... one would have to bound from article to article to see all of them, not simply cull them from a single list as with "List of converts to ..." Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see your point, my argument only applies to the "converts to" article. I've revised my !vote accordingly. On seeing the groupings more readily, List of Buddhists could have subsections for notable converts to make them easy to find. I don't see that separate article with extensive duplication is at all useful. Yworo (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all 7 15 (or will that number continue growing?) and then examine each over a reasonable length of time on their own individual merits, as opposed to a mass nomination requiring a "keep all" or "delete all" result. While certainly the information on these various notables can be or is included in literally hundreds of separate articles, offering the information in such lists to serve our readers quest for specific knowledge is the way we do things here... and are for the most part decently sourced and offer readers encyclopdic information per WP:SALAT and WP:LISTPURP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I originally only nominated ONE, why is it that people get upset if I only nominate one (RELIGIOUS BIAS) or nominate several, (WHOLESALE DELETION). I figured, yes let's do one at a time, individually and added more to the list as a response to accusations of religious intolerance or something along those lines. It doesn't matter how you do things on wikipedia, someone get's pissy. Ncboy2010 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly consider merging some of them. That this was originally a POINTY nomination is shown by the now stricken first paragraph. As the nom says, when this was explained to him, he then nominated every possible list that was in any way related as well. hardly a rational approach. The only other argument is that it could also be shown by a category. There is established policy here: we normally use both--lists always can add additional information about contexts, such as dates, which are lost when using categories. An argument saying "delete all because there is some duplication is a way of looking at deletion that would destroy Wikipedia very quickly, as most of our articles have some degree of duplication. It is quite common that people are on both general and specific lists, though this is something we try to avoid in categories--unless they inherently have a partial overlap."Not Directory" is an absurd argument, because the list is limited to the notable with Wikipedia articles, as are all such lists. . A directory would list every known Buddhist, etc. DGG ( talk ) 14:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Per WP:CLN, we don't delete lists because there might be equivalent categories. Warden (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:CLN, WP:SALAT and WP:LISTPURP. Sourav Mohanty (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per DGG and Col. Warden. Bearian (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - reasonably likely to be useful to a reader. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all no possible reason for deletion . Rahul Mothiya ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 08:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Super useful for research projects. I really need this! Supertigerman (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete all as violations in spirit of Wikipedia:BLPCAT with a list being equivilent to a category, and the policy reading "religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Gaijin42 (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore the arguments of ncboy2010 and gaijin42 - I believe they are militant, prejudiced, racist even, so called "new atheists" and only wish to see this useful anti-atheist tool deleted as part of their genocidal wishes to remove all religion off the face of the earth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.216.123 (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Further more consider this scenario:- What if this page was a list of notable, prominent black people, and we were finding rascist individuals trying to delete this page because it demoloshes their vile prejudiced notions that "blacks are inferior" - Wikipedia would never ever have considered their bleatings for one single second - and in some countries this could even be considered an actual hate crime! But no - this is prejudice against religious people - and these atheists despite being exactly the same as such vile rascists, get away with it - and they think they're untouchable, and that THEY are the good guys! Do not let them get away with it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.216.123 (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm, well, I am not an athiest, I am a (mostly non practicing) Christian. I am actually somewhat anti-athiest as I think they can be pretty militant themselves, but that is an aside. I have some real concerns with these articles (including conversions to athiesm) as violations of blpcat, the inclusion in the lists being unsourced, and in some cases (say conversions away from Islam) could be criminal accusations depending on the subject's country, or otherwise subjecting the person to discrimination, attacks, murder, or execution. Conversions to and from religion need to be extremely well sourced (including specific self-admission) within the articles imo, and even further have significant relevance to that subjects notability, criteria which cannot be met in the list format. Personally, I find the topics themselves quite interesting, but I don't feel there is a way to do them that satisfies policy or moral obligations such topics would require. Further, this anonymous unsigned comment above I consider a personal attack. (PS) I wrote this before the anon's second comment, where he is now calling me a racist. This is definately a personal attack and I will be reporting it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will temper my delete !vote by saying I do see many of the items are sourced, so my unsourced comment above is inaccurate, but I do still believe the lists to be in violation of the spirit of blpcat. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The right to change one's religion, enshrined in several human rights treaties, is so much under threat nowadays that this list is very useful! Keep it! In particular, the right to leave islam needs a lot of attention world wide and this list is helpful in that respect. In 2007 a poll in the UK revealed that 36% of British muslim men between 16-24 years of age favour the death penalty for those who leave islam. (source: Policy Exchange Think Tank). In Egypt, 86% of all muslims favour the killing of those who dare to leave islam (ThePewResearchCenter December 2010). Those facts alone are ample reason to keep this list. --Rabbit1833 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat exactly to my point above. We might be putting members of this list into mortal jeopardy, or at a minimum ostracization by including them. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very valid point Gainjin42, some on this list have already been threatened and/or almost killed. The question in each case should be: is he/she speaking openly about having left islam? If not, take him/her off the list.--Rabbit1833 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usefull list! Keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.131.129 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am in no way being anti-religious and nominated several more articles because of the accusation of being prejudiced. Furthermore, comparing this to racism is ludicrous; There is no list of former black people because one cannot choose their skin color, but they can change their religious beliefs. Regardless, the community has spoken and I have no issue with the existence of the articles per-se, I just don't believe they belong here for reasons that don't stem from militant atheism, rather the encyclopaedic content of the lists themselves. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all: If religion can form an important part of infobox, then it is surely encyclopaedic to study people's thought, change of heart, as well as change of faith. Keep all. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Keep all I don't see how this basic idea falls afoul of WP:LISTPURP or related guidelines. No prejudice towards renomination of individual articles with this form on sourcing or other grounds (i.e., I would probably vote delete for List of former members of the Church of the SubGenius). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep all; this sort of list is an essential part of the reason people come to an encyclopedia -- to browse such things, or to use them to find topics. The difficulty of making them fairly is irrelevant--it is difficult to write fairly about religion (or politics or nationality) but that is no reason why we should stop covering them. And I point out that many of these lists came into existence because of the difficulty in otherwise deciding whether to list someone as a member of a religious group they had once been a member of, and are needed for completeness and fairness). The main delete argument, of sourcing, seems to have been withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a clarification, I noted that most of the entries had a footnote. I did not read through the sources to verify that the footnote actually sourced a selfidentification with the religion (or former religion) as I think blpcat would require. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2012 (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.