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The result was nomination withdrawn per alteration to WP:NOT.--Strothra 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity by country

[edit]

Delete or move to Wikisource. Article is simply a list of statistics thus violating WP:NOT#STATS. Strothra 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom Per alteration to the WP:NOT policy. --Strothra 18:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NOT#STATS doesn't apply; this is not a "long and sprawling list of statistics" but a neat and maintainable set of tables. RandomCritic 16:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful encyclopedic list. IP198 17:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per WP:NOT#STATS, "Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. MarkBul 19:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've now removed that sentence from WP:NOT per my comments below and on that policyls talk page. Iain99 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's a misunderstanding about NOT#STATS. While statistics listed without comment are frowned upon, we LIKE statistics. They are considered an objective measure of otherwise subjective claims. I note that, on this article, it is not just well sourced, but also includes a warning to contributors about not throwing in unsourced changes. Mandsford 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The point is not to take on some crusade against statistics. Rather, it is a minor point of housekeeping - Statistics are used as primary sources and thus are better suited for Wikisource rather than Wikipedia since simply listing statistics is not encyclopedic. --Strothra 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Then I don't think I would recommend you for housekeeping..... Mandsford 15:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither would I. Wikipedia needs improving, not eroding by deleting important articles. I've just had a look at Wikisource and it's completely not the right place for trherse articles.Vexorg 12:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list, is encyclopedic, even though it does use statistics. Hello32020 20:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is highly relevant for people researching informations about Christianity. I agree with RandomCritics that it is not a long and sprawling list of statistics, so WP:NOT#STATS doesn't apply here. Remember WP:PAPER: there is no limit to the number of subjects Wikipedia can cover. Canjth 20:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's something wrong with this part of WP:NOT as my reading of Wikisource policy is that they expressly exclude statistical data. [1], [2] As such, simply copying the information to Wikisource seems not to be an option; the information is useful and encyclopedic, and should be kept. Iain99 22:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep I can't believe this article is being nominated for deletion. It most certainly is NOT WP:NOT#STATS - The only caveat with this article, and indeed it's sister articles Buddhism by country, Islam by country and Hinduism by country is the difficulty in finding accurate and upto date sources. However these articles are extremely valuable in providing at least a good estimate of Religious Adherence on the planet. The article is properly annoted with the caveats and warns the reader of such. Deleting this and other similar articles would really devalue wikipedia. Vexorg 22:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Informative, encyclopedic. Should be improved. — JyriL ^talk 22:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--SkyWalker 14:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:FIVE "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written for the benefit of its readers. It incorporates elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." (emphasis added). --JayHenry 22:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JayHenry hits it out of the ball park here. Can we get a speedy? --Kizor 08:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion

If you disagree: Any editor who disagrees with a proposed deletion can simply remove the tag. Even after the page is deleted, any editor can have the page restored by any administrator simply by asking. In both cases the editor is encouraged to fix the perceived problem with the page.

In line with the above I'm going to remove the tags. There are NO grounds whatsoever as has been pointed out. Let's make better use of our time than wasting it on this.Vexorg 16:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing Proposed deletion with Deletion discussions - please don't remove the tags, as this needs to be closed by an admin. However, I think it may be time to invoke WP:SNOW and close this early. Iain99 16:37, 3 September 2007 (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.