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.
These lists are purely WP:LISTCRUFT and collection of WP:INDISCRIMINATE or trivial lists. Per WP:NOT I don't see any encyclopedic value in these lists and can't find any proper WP:RS preserving such lists.
While it is clear that most of the listed names on these articles had no effect of religion on their career and many of the sources used on these lists are now prohibited by WP:RSPS, another major issue with the maintenance of these lists is that we will never have a proper criterion as the subject of 'conversion' is not unambiguous. Here are the problems that editors including me have faced while maintaining these lists:
If the person is alive (WP:BLP) then the entry should comply with WP:BLPCAT but other editors argue that if no sources dispute the information of a said conversion then it should be included.
If a person is not alive, then the entry should ensure WP:V is met, but it happens often that one account is contradicted by another account and the said source is not qualified enough to make an assertion about the conversion. Most of the time the source is not explicit about the conversion let alone identifying how the conversion happened.
If a person is either alive or dead and the source assessed conversion by judging the traits or works concerning the individual but the information would itself fail WP:UNDUE if presented on the person's main article.
These are some of the few reasons that result in endless edit wars on these pages and no agreement is ever reached and the pages are left in poor shape.
It is also unclear that what really counts as a 'conversion'. Does it mean that a person is supposed to take birth in a religious family or they should adhere to a particular religion before they convert to another religion? Even if either requirement is not fulfilled, there are sources that would speculate something only by judging the surnames or background of the said person. What if people like Cheryl Spector, Noah Wyle, Salman Khan, and others were raised or followed more than 1 faith but a source happens to focus only on 1 of their faiths?
If information about a 'conversion' is necessary then it is best maintained on the individual's own article instead of using these lists that are prone to disruption. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss more individual lists before AfDPersonally I am not fond of any lists, but those help in help of research subject better a) Prima facie AfD seems to have come from fatigue of Wikipedia norms not being properly followed and edit wars. I doubt whether fatigue can be reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not perfect and always under development project with lot many imperfections and edit wars. Edit wars on wikipedia re just not going to end with delisting the lists rather people will end up doing more edit wars on main article page spending all their time at one place and that will be much more headache. Article Religious conversion which has religion wise sections. There is more than enough academic literature on why do people convert from one religion to another. Some associate articles likely to exist in other names which nom may not have investigated in detail. For example List of converts to Buddhism from Hinduism is associated with Dalit Buddhist movement C) For List of Muslim apostates associated encyclopedic articles are available and there edit wars are too minor. d) Discussions on talk pages out of edit wars can lead to better research on the topics and improvement in Wikipedia in long run. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. The few names that exist in most of the list owes to the improper sourcing. Now if we were to apply the requirement of self-admission backed by WP:RS for living people than gossip news sites and high quality WP:RS for those who are not alive then we will see barely see any names on these lists. Azuredivay (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these aren't listcruft because Religious conversion is definitely an encyclopedic topic, including numerous subtopics e.g. Conversion to Christianity, Conversion to Judaism, Apostasy in Islam, Conversion to Islam in prisons, etc. (WP:LISTCRUFT is in any case an essay with no formal standing.) Sure, we don't have an article on conversion to Sikhism, but that doesn't make it an unencyclopedic topic. Religion forms a large part of many people's lives and converting from one religion to another can be a life-transforming event. There is an obvious standard to use for inclusion: the existence of a reliable source which says that the subject converted between those religions. If people really are ignoring the verifiability and BLP policies in discussions about those articles then that's not a good reason to delete them. Hut 8.518:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just as an example there are many, many sources about John Henry Newman's conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism and it is unarguably one of the more pivotal moments in the modern history of Christianity in the United Kingdom. While List of converts to Catholicism is not directly subject to this AfD, it is a good example of a case where having these lists are useful. Newman is notable for many things, but one of the things he is most notable for is being the single most prominent convert from the Church of England to the Church of Rome since Henry VIII. A list article provides readers with this knowledge, and allows them to read more about him.To apply the same principle to the other pages - it isn't reasonable to expect people to review every list in this bundled AfD. They will be of varying quality and sourcing. That does not mean that the concept behind them does not fall within our criteria for inclusion, and that they don't provide a value to the reader. There are people, such as Newman, in every religion, who are notable because of the fact of their conversion. Having lists of people like this is a benefit to the reader, and undoubtably falls within our inclusion criteria, which is The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Any cursory source of Google will show that the concept of converts to a religious group has had many academic books written on it. It's a pivotal part of the human experience for many people. Of course they are notable as lists. Some of the above probably could be merged, but that doesn't take AfD to do. Keep, clean-up to meet policy, and merge as needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge While the OP has a point with regard to the lists of converts from x to y, I fail to see the basis for over-extendeding it to the first 6 (lists of converts to each religion) and last 5 (lists of former religious individuals from each religion). While there are no articles about converting from each religion to the other, there are plenty of articles about conversion to, and apostasy from, each religion (as well as articles like: Off the derech, Covenant-breaker, Backsliding, Ex-Muslims, Epikoros, Kafir, Tirthika, etc.). However, there is no reason or basis for having each permutation/combination. Therefore, those lists should be merged into the others, which can be arranged to have the individuals sorted by which religion (or non-religion) they converted to/from. Aside from being the right option, it makes for a nice compromise between keep and delete. As far as the OPs other issues regarding sources and ambiguity, those are not reasons to delete, they are general issues that should be delt with as they are on any other page. Yaakovaryeh (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Yaakovaryeh. "Conversion to Religion X", especially when it's a religion with a formal conversion process (such as Judaism and some Christian denominations) seems entirely encyclopedic, and we have plenty of those articles (Conversion to Judaism, Conversion to Catholicism, Conversion to Buddhism). I don't object to Y to X style articles but they could be merged into "to X", optionally with sections for each source religion, if others do. Rusalkii (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia has no lists like List of former straight people, List of gays who became straight, List of non-vegetarians who became vegetarian, List of former non-vegetarians. There should be no exception for these indiscriminate lists. 122.170.51.88 (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This IP's 15th edit ever. Also you can't turn gay or straight, there no way to transform yourself. And a vegetarian is not the same as a religious experience. DreamFocus16:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't comparable because the conversion process isn't an encyclopedic topic in its own right. Except for Coming out I suppose, but since basically every LGBT person comes out at some point a list of people who have come out as LGBT would just be a list of LGBT people. By contrast we have plenty of articles about religious conversion. Hut 8.518:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:TRAINWRECK. Most of those meet WP:NLIST, and for those that don't they need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some of these articles might need re-organization by geography instead of by former religion. For example, I couldn't find much RS for the topic of "Conversion to Islam from nontheism", but I did find RS for topics of "Conversion to Islam in the US"[1], "Conversion to Islam in the UK"[2][3] etc.VRtalk16:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all mainly per WP:TRAINWRECK. The list of nominated articles looks like a cherry-pick as it misses significant articles like List of converts to Catholicism – which has 435 references and doesn't fit the narrative of LISTCRUFT made in the nomination statement. Perhaps the lists of converts to X from Y could be merged or deleted, but that should be a separate AfD. – SD0001 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep per WP:TRAINWRECK as above. There's far too many articles being considered here. I think that some individual articles might warrant deletion if brought to an individual AfD, but there's no way to reasonable review all of these articles to see if they are notability or not with so many bundled nominations, especially when the articles vary in quality. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk))20:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The articles have different quality with one another, and mass deletion of them will be wrong. That said, people converting are clearly notable issues, WP:RS in some countries would cover it well. SunDawntalk22:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Far too many !votes above fall squarely into either WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL. While conversion is a notable issue (as the general topic articles Hut 8.5 links to demonstrate) individual conversions are not unless the convert is notable solely or significantly because of their conversion. Any such cases (which are a tiny minority) Should be merged into the parent article. These articles are characterized by large amounts of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as well as WP:UNDUE emphasis on individual faith decisions that are not defining features of a person's life. The sourcing has also been abysmal, with many non-WP:RS and frequent lack of verifiable sourcing. Even if these Core Content Policy issues (not to mention the WP:BLP ones) could all be addressed, there is a fundamental lack of compliance with WP:LISTN that none of the sources in these articles nor any of the Keep arguments above address. These lists are filled with individual entries of individual decisions with individual sourcing, not sources that show lists of converts have ...been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. For all these reasons, extremely selective merging of the few actually notable converts can easily be done and the lists themselves removed. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)16:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how WP:NLIST works. NLIST requires the existence of sources that discuss the list items as a group or set. It does not require that the list be cited exclusively with such sources (The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been). Also regarding your comment about individual conversions not being notable – yes, and it is not required as well – Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable – SD0001 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't your original objection at all. Entire books have been written about converts [4][5][6] – and these 3 are just about converts to judaism. There is no shortage of sources that demonstrate NLIST applies. – SD0001 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001:, I sincerely doubt Wikipedia reading audience ever read lists. Users usually come to nominate some title in the list. If they just nominate without link they realize others have blue link, then they would attempt to create blue link and join in to add an article if already not present. Wikipedia being crowd sourced project, this utility value benefits Wikipedia more by encouraging writing new entries, rather than who attempts to add a title in the list, since such lists do not have reading audience. So when I refer to 'usefulness of lists for encyclopedic research' I am not referring to usefulness for public consumption but for legitimate encyclopedic progress of a crowed sourced project. Existent policies are technicalities and technicalities need not over ride merit. I would not mind Lists being a separate namespace but should be searchable. Wikipedia talk:Five pillars has an ongoing discussion about all the extended purposes Wikipedia serves and it does not. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing how any of this is a response to anything I wrote? Lists being a separate namespace is something I'm sure has been proposed in the past but firmly rejected. – SD0001 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be arguing that we can't have a list on a topic unless the entries in the list are not only notable but notable for the reason they're included in the list. This has no basis in any policy or guideline and would lead to the deletion of huge numbers of lists if adopted. For example I assume you would support the deletion of List of polio survivors (very few entries are notable through being polio survivors) and List of Eagle Scouts (very few entries are notable through being Eagle Scouts). Those are both featured lists. I don't see where your claims of synthesis are coming from. Synthesis requires that the article draw some conclusion from sources which don't draw that conclusion. An entry in a list of converts, referenced to a source which says that person is a convert, is not synthesis. And as has been noted NLIST does not require that all entries be sourced to a reference which discusses the entries as a group, merely that there exists a reference which discusses the entries as a group. Hut 8.517:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with reference to TonyBallioni's and Hut's arguments. The trainwreck considerations are also very valid, but I think most of these articles would be kept even independently considering the substantial encyclopedic relevance of religious conversion. (Several are likely better merged into larger lists, but that's a merge discussion.) "Cruft" is not an argument -- it's a complaint. Plenty of articles I complain about, too. Most of them would survive AfD. I recognize the maintenance issue as serious, and I'm probably a lot more sympathetic to it than many of the keep !voters here; article maintenance is genuinely a serious issue in an era where the article count so massively outstrips the editor count. There are articles I'd support the deletion of on that basis (a lot of our barely-notable modern politics coverage, for one). I do not, however, think a meaningful case has been made the issues are so serious as to indicate the deletion of a wide variety of articles on encyclopedic topics. Vaticidalprophet23:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have numerous categories covering converts. The question of how appropriate it is to have lists is a wider question. They were useful in the early days of WP for identifying subjects on which an article was needed, these appearing as redlinks in the list. How useful they are today is questionable, but that is a much wider question than the one raised by this nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually I got inspired in writing an encyclopedic article when I realized existing article and existing list are not covering the topic enough. Some how Wikipedians are shy of acknowledging encyclopedic information and knowledge gaps. Just putting up hat note notices on lists pages for which article deserves but does not exist can be beneficial. If still users do not come ahead to write about such list be referred to Wikipedia academic student collaboration. IMHO Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: Mainly because of WP:TRAINWRECK and because this seems like a case for an RfC rather than AfD. I agree with most of the nominator's points, but I feel they should be brought to the discussion table to form a consensus about how to treat conversion as a subject on Wikipedia, which doesn't seem evident here. dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc07:59, 20 December 2021 (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.