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 and Salt Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been asked to formally record my reasons for the decision. Basically its indiscriminate information. Even the way it was framed meant that inclusion was too hit and miss to be properly encyclopaedic and its too broad an area to properly define a manageable list. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christians[edit]

List of Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This was deleted (by me) several weeks ago after a debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christians (2nd nomination). It's not an identical recreation so WP:CSD#G4 does not apply. The assertion on the talk page is that the problems identified in the previous AfD, including the arbitrariness of the criteria for listing, are addressed in the recreation. I think that assertion needs to be tested at AfD. Please do not let this be a repeat of the previous AfD verbatim. The question before us is simply: Have the issues that caused the previous incarnation to be deleted been addressed? Chick Bowen 15:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Adolf Hitler and a serial killer? I see this page is much improved. MarkBul 18:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seven individuals... only a few billion more needed to make this list complete. More being saved every day. Mandsford 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your argument here? That the list is incomplete? Of course it is incomplete, and ever will it be. That's not a criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 20:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. It's Nick Graves again. Hi, Nick. Nice to see you again. Mandsford 15:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This might be sarcasm. It's hard to tell in print. In any case, what is your response? Are you proposing a change in deletion criteria to include lists that are incomplete? Or do you have another reason for recommending deletion--one that is consistent with existing policy or guidelines? Nick Graves 20:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sarcasm. I think I speak for all ten of us who have voted to delete, when I say that we appreciate that you take the time to respond to each of us individually. And we respect the fact that you want to fight to keep your article. And, being a Christian myself, I'm all in favor of encouraging people to make that decision during their lifetime. But honestly, what's your agenda here? Do you plan to list every notable person in history whose upbringing included trips to a Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, Greek Orthodox, Presbyterian, etc. church? Or is this one of those articles where you start with a handful of people and ask everyone else to "contribute"? I'd vote the same for a List of Moslems, List of Jews, List of Zoroastrians, etc. Mandsford 16:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing appreciation on behalf of yourself and other editors who recommend deletion. But appreciation is not what I'm after when I make these individual responses. This is a discussion, not a vote, and I'm asking people to specify the policy-supported rationales that may or may not be behind their recommendation. You still have not explained how you believe your delete recommendation is supported by policy. In this latest comment, it seems you object to the supposedly indiscriminate scope of the list ("every notable person in history whose upbringing includes trips to... church"). But that is most certainly not the intended scope of the list, whose inclusion criteria specify that these are persons identified by reliable sources as Christians who are particularly important to Christianity in some way (its development, its public face, etc.). If that is your objection to the list, your are objecting to a straw man. You seem concerned about how this list will be formed, whether by me individually, or through collaboration. The means by which the list will be created has no bearing on whether it should exist. You say that you would vote the same way for other lists of this type, but this just begs the question "Why delete?" So I ask you again: Why delete? Incompleteness is not a valid criterion for deletion. Nick Graves 01:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt - The membership criteria listed at the top of the article appears to be closer to meeting Criteria for inclusion in lists. However, it fails to mention anything about independent reliable sources. Including those people who have identified themselves as a Christian as noted on the article talk page violates the independent requirement of the general notability guidelines. The implementation of that criteria for individuals clearly is original research whose selective inclusion in the list are designed to give a WP:POV negative view of Christians. Despite the message sent by AfD#2, that message was not received by those who re-created this article. The re-creation of this article after deletion in unencyclopedic form and against policy creates a need to protect this topic from further re-creation until a new group of editors become interested in the topic and the old editors have moved on to other topics. -- Jreferee t/c 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what to make of this. RS1900 posted a strong delete at AfD#2 but was the one who added the Hitler reference to the present article.[1] This seems like WP:POINT, but those editing the article discussed the matter on the talk page and declined to remove the Hitler addition to the list, even though it did not meet the listed membership criteria. The only thing I can make of this is that those presently interested in the article lack the experience to maintain control over this article, which supports my salt request. -- Jreferee t/c 20:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletions. —Jreferee t/c 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I cannot speak for the other editors, but I have extensive experience with lists of people by belief, including List of atheists, and List of agnostics, which (under my former account) I helped save from the brink of deletion by tightening inclusion criteria and providing sourcing. I have also heavily contributed to List of Telecaster players, also helping make the inclusion criteria more strict, and providing reliable sources for the entries there. It went on to become a featured list. Please forgive my apparent lack of vigilance at List of Christians, as I have been involved in an AfD discussion and collecting evidence for alleged sockpuppetry. Please also see the changes made there since the current AfD. Nick Graves 20:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Jreferee, in what way did the re-creation of this article go against policy? You also say that it has been created in "unencyclopedic form." Surely, it is not yet in a form that in any signficiant way replicates the encyclopedic ideal, but is this not a consequence of the sheer newness of the article? Rare is the article treating any substantial topic that finds itself in a very useful and pleasing shape within the first few days of its creation. Nick Graves 03:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is clear that very strict criteria are needed. Some editors have not gotten the picture yet, but after this latest AfD, I'd wager they will. Please do not expect this article to be in perfect condition, or anywhere near a complete or substantial state so soon after being created. Of course, it would be asinine to try to list all Christians in the world, but no one has suggested doing so. Please see the list in its latest state, with new, strict criteria. Nick Graves 20:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you describe here what you feel the criteria to be? It's not entirely clear to me what "notable as Christians" (which is the only definition of criteria in the article itself) means. After all, no one is notable only as a Christian. Most of the people on it currently seem to be either clergymen or people whose Christianity is somewhat surprising (like Hitler) which seems to me to be somewhat different. Chick Bowen 20:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Notable as Christians" does not mean "notable only as Christians." I don't think most people would assume the latter based on the former wording. If you've got a better idea for wording, I'm all ears. This criterion is put that way to specify that not all notable people who are Christians belong in the list (like, say, Hitler). I suppose Britney Spears is a notable Christian, but she is not notable as a Christian. Constantine is notable as a Roman emperor, but he is also notable as a Christian, since he was so influential in the religion becoming the state religion of Rome. Nick Graves 21:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So presumably the list could include David Koresh, Fred Phelps, Joseph Kony, Joseph Smith, Jr., Eric Robert Rudolph, Vlad III the Impaler? Thomjakobsen 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, if reliable sources are found stating that they are notable as Christians. If you or anyone else finds this to be a distasteful possibility, might I suggest considering it anew within the context of WP:NPOV. The job of lists such as these is not to document only the notable Christians that everyone likes. It's not a List of good Christians. After all, List of atheists includes such monsters as Stalin and Enver Hoxha. These lists should not serve an apologetic purpose, pro or con. Nick Graves 01:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever inclusion criteria the article's creator may have in mind, they're certainly not clear from the article's text or from his actions after this AfD started. For one thing, he deleted the C. S. Lewis entry from the list; and if CSL isn't "notable as a Christian" the meaning of that phrase must be escaping me entirely. Every individual clergyman with a WP article, every Christian theologian throughout history, every saint in any Christian denomination's calendar—why would not all these and many, many more folk merit listing here? If the list's maintenance depends entirely on the creator's "knowing one when he sees one," without a way for any other contributor to judge whether a potential entry does or does not meet the inclusion criteria, then the list is effectively unmaintainable. Deor 21:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• C.S. Lewis is the type of person who definitely belongs, but he could not stay on the merits of the former source cited, as it reported on his personal profession of faith, rather than confirming his notability as a Christian. This change was made in response to Jreferee's comments above, with the intent to forge a new list with inclusion criteria every bit as strict as editors in this AfD and the former one believe should be in place. I'm not sure how the inclusion criteria text could be made any clearer than it already is, but I am open to suggestions. You seem to think a clearer set of criteria are possible. What, pray, would those be if not the ones already in place? The list's maintenance absolutely does not depend on the creator's "knowing [a Christian] when he sees one." Every individual listed so far depends on independent, reliable sources for such identification. C.S. Lewis and many more notable Christians can be added by myself and other editors using reliable sources if given the opportunity. I am certainly eager to begin that work. Nick Graves 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On the basis of what use is it? Who would need such a list? By definition it's never going to be complete anyway per above. And I can see endless edit wars breaking out. --Rodhullandemu 21:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be of use to people wishing to survey those figures who are notable among Christians. Maybe this is not something of interest to you, in which case the list is of no use to you personally. But that does not make it of no use at all. Sure, it'll never be complete. The collection of human knowledge in encyclopedic form is always an ongoing process, and in no other format is this more evident than at Wikipedia. Are you saying we should not try to collect information here just because there is too much of it? If you're right, then all of Wikipedia and its 2 million plus articles ought to be abandoned. Imaginary future edit wars are not a criterion for deletion. There are a great many fine articles that have gone through numerous and/or lengthy edit wars. Nick Graves 02:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as Lists of Christians and delete section for individuals. That will be specific and of some encyclopedic navigational value. Or would a category be better for this? - Fayenatic (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While theoretically defined and limited, in practice - as pointed out above - every saint, cardinal, bishop, rabbi, eastern orthodox whatever-they-are, would make this impossibly large. And that's without thinking about references. And what about all the American politicians who make a stink about their religious values - do they all get in? And does Thomas Jefferson get in? He edited his own bible. There's just no end to it in practice. MarkBul 22:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever happens, I don't think that rabbis would qualify. :) Deor 23:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree, I doubt if rabbis would appreciate being included in a list of Christians. I can also see arguments breaking out along the lines of the Peoples' Front of Judea versus the Judean Peoples' Front. Unhelpful & difficult to manage. --Rodhullandemu 23:57, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No doubt it's a massive undertaking, but it will not be an impossibly large article, as it will naturally be broken down into logical subdivisions which will then be split off into separate articles as length merits, and as is customary with other lists of this type. Why should there be a List of Zoroastrians, but not a List of Christians just because there happen to be so many Christians? And yes, I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but I do not think that the Zoroastrians list is crap, other than the fact that it needs sourcing. Nick Graves 02:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see it is somewhat improved over the earlier discussions here today. some of the people added show a possible desire to sabotage the list by making it ridiculous. suggestion: make it List of lists of Christians, referring to the other specific lists that e already have or could make. DGG (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete There are so many christians and it would be very difficult to maintain a list like this. I think it should be deleted. I would say, strong delete. RS1900 07:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly can be difficult to maintain lists. Sometimes, people insist on making POV-motivated additions to lists such as this, without proper regard for inclusion criteria.Take this, for example. But any article can be vulnerable to that type of thing. That shouldn't stop us from trying. Many potentially controversial lists have gone through rough patches, but have been hammered into good shape in the end. Some even end up achieving featured status. Nick Graves 20:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete far too many people in the English-language WP will qualify. Might as well have a List of English-speakers artcile. JJL 15:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an apples to oranges comparison. The current inclusion criteria would exclude the vast majority of notable people who happen to be Christian, since their Christianity isn't a big part of their notability. A better comparison would be with a list of notable Anglophone orators, or a list of persons widely regarded as influential in the development or spread of the English language. Nick Graves 15:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - I believe we have several guidelines and policies which indicate that neither completeness or length are ever to be considered reasonable criteria for deletion. Having said that, I believe that, in conjunction with all the similar articles in the Category:Lists of Christians, these articles together could in time become reasonably complete. Also, an article such as this clearly would be useful as the central article for that category. I acknowledge it will need substantial work, but the same can be said for every stub article that currently exists, and we don't see them being nominated for deletion on the basis of being incomplete. John Carter 14:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Whatever inclusion criteria, they are bound to be hopelessly arbitrary. --Victor falk 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is simply false. The inclusion criteria currently in place are far from arbitrary, and tie inclusion to what is reported in reliable sources, rather than the opinions of individual editors. Nick Graves 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I don't think it will be possible to maintain this list without succumbing to point-of-view arguments. I also think it's potentially so large as to be unmanageable. NawlinWiki 20:49, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The possibility that there might be future disputes about content is not a criterion for deletion. In any case, the possibility of POV arguments is reduced by linking the content of this list with what is reported in reliable sources. This makes inclusion not a matter of an editor's individual opinion, but a matter of what has been reliably reported by others. The list is potentially very large, but it can be broken down into manageable and useful sections and then sub-lists as length merits. Such sub-lists could include List of Christian philosophers, List of Christian apologists, or List of Christian activists. Nick Graves 21:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question here. C.S. Lewis is described as a "Christan apologist" and is well-known as a "christian author" (Screwtape, Narnia). If we had List of Christian apologists and and List of Christian authors, would he appear in both? And how would St Thomas Aquinas or Thomas a Kempis fit into this structure, each belonging to several possible categories? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with someone being listed in more than one list, provided they fit. Many of those included in lists by profession would also fit into a certain list by denomination. That sort of question is a "bridge we can cross when we get there," assuming the current list survives. Nick Graves 21:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless and unmanageable list. Axl 11:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The list is not pointless. One of the purposes of the list is to collect in one spot or nexus of lists the figures who are widely regarded by reliable sources as being particularly influential as Christians, as a supplement to the articles Christian and {[Christianity]]. It is customary for articles on religion to have lists of such figures, as they can help a reader better understand the subject and its cultural relevance. Such lists have an advantage in this respect over categories, as they can be much more selective. Also, unlike categories, they can have references, supporting quotes, descriptions of how a figure is notable as a Christian, and pictures. The current criteria represent a reasonable and non-arbitrary selection threshold that will help the list continue to have a point as names are added and the list becomes more useful. The strictness of the criteria will also help the list remain manageable. As the list becomes more populated, entries may be divided into logical and useful subsections, and eventually, separate lists, such as those suggested by me above. I have extensive experience managing such lists in the past, and with the help of other editors, I have no reason to suspect that this list cannot be kept manageable if it is allowed to survive and be improved. Nick Graves 16:28, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the article's title is misleading; it isn't actually the "List of Christians", but rather a group of specially selected people: "persons who have been identified as notable Christians by independent, reliable sources". How about renaming the article? Axl 20:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and block recreation the community has spoken that a list like this - regardless of who makes the cut and what the criteria are - really is neither encyclopedic nor maintainable. We have umpteen categories for every stripe of Christian, this is not needed. Carlossuarez46 22:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would direct you to my comments above, in which I point out the many ways in which lists fulfill a role that categories cannot. You say the "community has spoken" on this type of issue, but that ignores the fact that other lists of this type have been nominated for deletion and survived. The will of the community is not at all unanimous on this. And, regardless of what preferences community members express, I have yet to see a well-supported, policy-citing argument for why this list ought to be deleted. "Unencyclopedic" is a vague objection, that amounts to little more than "I don't think it belongs on Wikipedia." Ok, that's a position, but why do you think it doesn't belong? In what way is it unencyclopedic? You say it is unmanageable, but many similar lists have proven manageable in practice. Why do you think this list in particular is unmanageable? What evidence do you have? You say it is not needed, but that depends on what one intends to use an encyclopedia for. I suppose an article that includes a list of the typical ingredients in a bloody mary is not needed by me, but it is surely informative and "needed" by others who have an interest in the subject. Similarly, this list of Christians, as it expands using reliable sources and reasonable inclusion criteria, can be of use to persons researching Christianity and the most notable figures within the faith. Nick Graves 01:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I reminded of Mark 1:3 here? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a near-infinite and largely indiscriminate list, that's why. There a couple of billion Christians alive today (1/3 the world's population) and probably a few billion others who have died in the past 2000 years. What do have they in common: Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Brigham Young, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Pope Urban II, Karla Faye Tucker, and about 1/3 (or more given WP's Western bias) of the people whose biographies are on here. And the good thing about lists is that they can have the redlinks too, so we're back to the billions. Carlossuarez46 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 21:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're objecting to a list that no one is even trying to create. The vast majority of these billions of Christians aren't even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. And of those persons who are notable enough for an article and happen to be Christian, the vast majority of those aren't important enough to Christianity to be put into the list by the existing criteria. The Adolf Hitler, GW Bush, and KF Tucker examples you give wouldn't cut it, according to these standards. My own policy on redlinks in lists is don't have 'em--persons are presumed non-notable for list purposes until someone has seen fit to create an article on them using multiple, reliable, independent sources. Then and only then can such a person even be considered for inclusion, and even then they might not pass muster, depending on what the sources say about their notability to Christianity. Nick Graves 00:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, and forgive me if I'm wrong: actually, forgive me anyway; the topic of this discussion is "List of Christians". Not "List of Notable Christians", and even that would have its own problems. I see a lot of old ground being re-ploughed here to no obvious benefit and my feeling here roughly follows Matthew 14:30. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 01:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title says it all: the purported limitation in the article - today it reads "This list is limited to persons who have been identified as notable Christians by independent, reliable sources. That is, individuals are not listed because they are notable, and also happen to be Christians or profess Christianity. Rather, they are listed because they are notable as Christians, as confirmed by independent, reliable sources. They are widely regarded as people who have been influential in the development or spread of Christianity, people who are prominent spokespersons for the faith, or people who have had a significant effect on the religion's reputation." is not a persuasive limitation as explained above: again it's unmanagable and OR/POV injection to boot "widely regarded" "influential" "prominent" "significant effect" are pure POV weasel words: given my examples above (Mother Teresa, Joan of Arc, Brigham Young, Adolf Hitler, George W. Bush, Pope Urban II, Karla Faye Tucker) all would qualify, and it's anyone else's POV to add or not anyone else. See Mark VIII.30-33, those who sacrifice for Christ are saved, those who witness for Him are saved - and those clearly have a significant effect on the religion's reputation. Where do we draw the line? By deleting this article as unworkable. Carlossuarez46 02:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I rely on my Faith to provide answers here, I can't help thinking that the appropriate metaphor for this debate is not to be found in the Scriptures, but in Greek mythology, and the word "Sisyphean" springs to mind. This debate should be closed without further delay, not that I have much confidence that it won't recur, and I blame Luke 14:23 for this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 03:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu, in all such lists, it is generally assumed that the persons listed must be notable in some way, making the "Notable" in the title usually redundant. At a bare minimum, persons listed must be notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. In some cases, where stricter criteria are needed to make the list of greater use and manageability, the notability criterion is tightened further such that a person's notability must have a certain relationship to their identity as an X (where "X" represents religiosity, a profession, a political persuasion, etc.). Besides, a list having the wrong name is not a criterion for deletion, but a criterion for renaming. I'd support renaming to "List of notable Christians" or "List of prominent Christians" if it meant keeping the list. In lists, the inclusion criteria elaborate on what is suggested by the title, which would often be too long and cumbersome if they had the level of specificity you seem to be demanding here.

Carlos, the inclusion criteria are not subject to OR/POV problems as you claim, because all of the inclusion-tightening restrictions you cite are not subject to an individual editor's opinion on a person's notability as a Christian, but explicitly tied to and limited by what has been "confirmed by independent, reliable sources." I heavily doubt you or anyone else will ever find a reliable source stating that Tucker or Hitler, etc. are particularly influential for having been Christians. You say that "those who sacrifice for Christ are saved, those who witness for Him are saved - and those clearly have a significant effect on the religion's reputation." Making a judgment as to someone's notability as a Christian on that basis would be an example of violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, since it would rely on your personal opinion that anyone who makes sacrifices or witnesses for Christ has a signficiant effect on the religion's reputation, and that's exactly what the inclusion criteria are designed to eliminate. Again, this list is and should be all about what the reliable sources say on the matter, not what the individual editors think about the matter. Nick Graves 10:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and block recreation: haven't we already discussed this? I'll use the example that I gave earlier: "I'm a Christian. Can I add my name to this list?" This list will never be complete, and don't we have categories for these types of things? Ksy92003(talk) 01:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kay: The former list was discussed, and the reason for deletion then was that the list maintainers had not addressed concerns about sourcing and inclusion criteria. The current list does not have these problems--it is thoroughly sourced (what little there is so far), and inclusion criteria are strict. This is a different discussion, since the reason for deletion, if any, must be different from in the earlier discussion. You express concern about people wanting to include their own names on such lists. This is primarily a newcomer's inclination, and is easily dealt with by answering "No," and quickly deleting non-notable persons' names from the list if they are added. Incompleteness is not a criterion for deletion. There are many incomplete lists containing the dynamic list template, and many such lists are nevertheless in fine shape. One such list that I heavily contributed to even achieved featured status. You say we have categories for these types of things. I can only assume you haven't read all of the above discussion, in which I explain the many ways in which lists fulfill roles that categories cannot. Nick Graves 01:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Pointless list, This page will need lots of work to improve it (but that is what Wikipedia is about), but it doesn't violate WP:LISTS so there are no grounds for deletion. WP:LISTS should be changed instead. Hard to believe it was deleted before when there was no consensus to delete. Assize 22:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "offending" section seems to be the listing of individual Christians. Isn't this really a case of somebody editing it to fix it up. Since when is a content dispute resolved by deleting an article? The balance of the article is a list of lists, which clearly falls within WP:LISTS. There are many advantages of lists over categories. Assize 12:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the muslims can have their list, why can't the christians have their list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayhemrw (talk • contribs) 14:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to category This article is actually not a list of Christians, but a list of lists of Christians. It has a short list of disparate individuals, who are oddly placed together. The main value of lists is that they can include red links for articles that are needed, but this has none. The introductory text could also adequately be put at the head of a category page. If the decision is to keep, I would recommend that the individuals section should be removed and its contents added to appropriate lists (or categorised). Peterkingiron 16:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already a category for Christians. Please see my comments above about how lists and categories serve different purposes. Redlinks for needed articles are just one use for lists, but not the main one. In a list such as this, where persons must be particularly notable as Christians to be included (since a list of all notable persons who happen to be Christians would be huge, unfocused, and of little value to those using the pedia for research on the topic), redlinks are a bane, rather than a bonus, because someone who doesn't already have an article at this point is highly likely not notable enough to warrant inclusion anyway. This list currently is admittedly underpopulated, but this is due to the newness of the article, and the fact that wholescale addition of entries is potentially a waste of effort as long as the existence of the article hangs in the balance. This list will become more useful as names are added and subsections and then subarticles are created to organize them logically (for example, apologists, philosophers, theologians, etc. would eventually have their own lists, rather than being kept together alphabetically). I think the main question here is not how useful is the list currently (not very, because it is so new, and therefore a stub), but how useful will it be once it is substantially populated using the inclusion criteria that are in place? And if the inclusion criteria are not restrictive enough, then the question is, how can they be changed to make this list most useful in its future forms? Another important question to answer is: Does this list, in fact, even violate policy? As Assize points out above, this list is within the policies set forth by WP:LISTS. Nick Graves 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as an ill-conceived list, redundant with categories, and unimproved after several AfD nominations and semi-recreations. Salt. Cool Hand Luke 07:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The old "we have categories, so we don't need lists" argument just doesn't hold water. I could reiterate what I've said above, but instead, I'll let other editors make the case. Please see Disadvantages of categories and Advantages of lists for reasons why a list can fulfill certain purposes that a category cannot. It is flat false that this list is unimproved since the last AfD. The old list had zero inclusion criteria and zero sources. The current list has rigorous inclusion criteria, and every entry has a reliable source backing it up. It addresses both of the major deletion grounds cited by the closing admin of the last AfD. If you or anyone else have ideas of how this list could be improved, I am eager to hear them and put them into practice. Nick Graves 17:53, 8 October 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.