Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of religious organizations (2nd nomination)

:{{la|List of religious organizations}} – (View AfD)(View log)

:({{findsources|List of religious organizations}})

This article purports to be a list of religious organizations. It is actually a very short and very incomplete list which mixes together denominations, organizations associated with religious denominations, organizations which have something to do with religion but are not associated with specific denominations, organizations which are not even clearly religious, and at least one parody religion which has no actual organization. The list is a bare alphabetical list with no classification used, no explanation of the criteria for inclusion, and no added information provided about the entries. As I said the last time this came up for AfD, I can't envision the existing article serving as the basis for a better article; if someone wanted to write a better article they would be better off starting from scratch than using this list. During the previous AfD, which closed as "no consensus", it was suggested that the article should be improved rather than deleted. However, in the almost four months since the last AfD, the article has received no edits other than my own edits today. I recommend that this article be deleted. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this is not a maintainable list and we are much much much better off using categories for this. JBsupreme (talk) 16:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Pending the outcome of this discussion I think List of criminal organizations should be listed for deletion as well. JBsupreme (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- There's no problem with this list that can't be solved with editing and proper sourcing. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::Also, I feel the need to point out- Lists and Categories can and are supposed to co-exist, with one doing things that the other can't. To say "It should be a category", or "Its better handled by a category" deprives readers of the advantages that lists bring to the table, and vice versa. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::: There are examples, such as this, where categorization is preferred. So yes, many things can co-exist, but that does not really mean that they should. JBsupreme (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

::::Neither you or the nominator have given a convincing reason why it SHOULDN'T be done. If someone can actually come up with one, I'll listen. But until then, nothing has been put forward that says this article is unsalvageable. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Trouble is, nobody really has enough spare time to salvage it. I think it survived deletion review before because of that attitude of "Somebody, other than I, can fix this". There is no virtue in having a useless encyclopedia article on display from one year to the next. This survived deletion back in June based on the suggestion that someone would be interested in expanding the list, notwithstanding that it's been neglected since its creation five years ago. Trying to make a somewhat complete and useful list of this nature would be a major undertaking, so it is no surprise that nobody has ever been thrilled about trying to to undertake such a task, including the original author. At some point, the concerns over deleting a potentially useful page have to be balanced against perpetually leaving up an unencyclopedic page, and this is just as unencyclopedic as a "List of American states" that's in alphabetical order, but doesn't get past "Connecticut". Someone who wants to make a comprehensive list of religious organizations should be able to create it to suit their own vision. Mandsford (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• weak Keep and expand--I agree this article is not yet in a reasonable state but incomplete is not a reason for deletion. Most articles here are incomplete, if it comes to that, though this is certainly among the weaker ones. All that means is that it needs more attention. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::: Honestly, the only attention that this pathetic little article has gotten in 2009 has been the pity it has received during the two nominations for deletion. Mandsford (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::And the reason for hurry is what exactly?Umbralcorax (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::: Everyone knows that this is a work in progress, but at some point you have to draw the line. 5 years? Yeah that's about where I'd draw the line if not sooner. JBsupreme (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for your opinion, but why "at some point you have to draw the line"? There is no hurry. At least, I don't feel the need to draw any line. We're not a corporation. We're a volunteer effort. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Article has problems but this is not a reason for deletion. We should help this article, not destroy it. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 00:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::::: I think it's fair to say that nobody in this discussion has any interest in taking the time to improve this article. This may close again as a "no consensus", but I wouldn't count on this surviving a third nomination for deletion if it remains unchanged. Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::And what should this mean? I would improve it but I don't think to have the knowledge to do that. This doesn't mean that the article shouldn't stay. There is no deadline, there is no hurry, we're not in a rush to deliver. The deletion policy says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. --Cyclopia^talk 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::: ...and at some point you have to make the executive decision as to whether the pile of flaming dog shit on the porch should be removed, rather than waiting and hoping that one day it will turn into a gold plated door mat. JBsupreme (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

::::::::Nice image, but that's not what the policy says. --Cyclopia^talk 00:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• JBSupreme is right, of course. I haven't turned the article into a gold plated door mat, but at least the odor of flaming dog shit isn't lingering. If this is going to close as another consensus, it doesn't have to stink. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note - User:Mandsford has made some very drastic edits to the article which I am unable to revert. They make a good point but as they fundamentally change the article into a different article I don't believe they're in the spirit of the AfD process. (The page would now be better titled "List of Lists Of Religious Organisations".) The pre-edit version of the page (last edited by JBsupreme) can be found [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_religious_organizations&oldid=321828672 here]. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_religious_organizations&oldid=321828672 originally appeared]; delete in its current format. If the page starts with lead text establishing it only lists groups which have themselves claimed to be a religious organisation, it's clearly delineated and maintainable. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

::Agree with you. I reverted to JBSupreme last edit. --Cyclopia^talk 12:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

::::: It's all right. I think that the closing administrator will look at the history when considering the keep comments. The "I'd improve it but I have the knowledge to do it" arguments might work a second time, but not three times. No information will be lost when this article is deleted. Mandsford (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

:::::: The point is that our deletion policy explicitly says that if the article can (not "will":"can") be improved through editing, deletion is not the way. We can for sure ask about the article to some Wikiproject that may recruit interested editors, for example. I will do it ASAP. --Cyclopia^talk 12:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck on locating an interested editor to do the work. As with trying to make a list of every political organization that has an article here, it would take a lot of labor to list every "religious organization", even after someone figures out what to include and what not to. "Conservata veritate" wouldn't apply here, since this information exists elsewhere on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

::I appreciate you argument based on my inclusionist position (by the way I am quite a weak inclusionist probably, since sometimes I endorsed deletions -it's more of a way to be not-deletionist given the current mood). But if you think about, all reliable information on WP exists elsewhere, on reliable sources. So one could theorically use your argument to endorse deletion of all WP as just redundant. Of course it is nonsense, and it is nonsense because we're not only here to collect information, but to collect it in a useful and practical way. The list has potential to be useful and practical (and lists, in contrast with other articles, are made especially to be useful, see WP:LIST), even if now it is not so much. Again, the delete policy is clear: if it can be improved, don't delete. Deletion is for articles that are intrinsically impossible to improve to WP standard. This is not the case. --Cyclopia^talk 15:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (hesitant) - I stand corrected. Delete - This list, in order to be accurate, needs to be much longer. In order to be useful, it needs to be understandable and have some logical flow. There are more interesting articles to work on. No one has made quality contributions to the article for years. No one will for years. It has "potential" that will never be realized. I challenge everyone who voted "keep" to spend some time improving this article rather than simply prolonging the life of an awkward, and (in its current form) useless list. Otherwise, in a few month or maybe years, it will be nominated for deletion again. And again. And again. I vote delete per no one is ever going to improve it. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 18:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: Since everyone here feels better if someone promises to work on the list, I propose the following. I am officially going to work on the list, starting probably tonight or tomorrow. I am not the best person to do it and I had other articles on my radar to work on, but I promise I will do my best. I will do the following:

::* Editing the list to list coherently the religious organizations

::* Ask several religion-related wikiprojects to help in editing the list

:Would non-trivial edits to this list to make it better and possibility of recruiting some interested editor make people reconsider their !votes? If yes, I am going to do it. --Cyclopia^talk 18:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I've begun to work on it. It is still of course truly far from optimal, but I feel it has begun a long journey to improvement. I am going to inform relevant Wikiprojects. I would be impressed if someone of the delete !voters who complained of "no one will fix it" shows good will and join me in helping the article *smile* --Cyclopia^talk 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

::You have already taken a stride in the right direction, and I applaud your effort. My vote has been swayed from delete to keep, as seen above. ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 00:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Thanks a lot. I have received a first answer from an editor of a Wikiproject in my talk page, and I hope to recruit some other editor on the thing. --Cyclopia^talk 00:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as per above, thanks to anyone who works on this. dml (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I've added my proposed inclusion criteria to the lead paragraph - "As it can be a matter of debate as to whether an organization is, in fact, religious, organizations only appear on this list where the organization itself claims or has claimed to be a religious organization" - although it seems like there might be a more appropriate way to phrase or present that criteria, so rewrites are, as always, appreciated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• ... and thanks to Cyclopia for the work on the article. I'm still against you on the Criminal Organisations AfD but I've got a lot of respect for your willingness to put the work in on articles you believe in! - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• You're welcome. The point is not "believing in". It is that article in a poor state should not be deleted just because they are in a poor state, and I'd prefer people to at least try to recruit editors that can help on the Wikiprojects instead of just throwing the towel and saying "no one will rescue it". I've been a bit hair-pulled into this, but it's fine, if it helps WP. The other list controversy on which we disagree is at a deeper level (on the appropriateness of the list), so this kind of work wouldn't help as much -but please tell me there if there's something I can do that could help. --Cyclopia^talk 12:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - But make it more of a disambiguation type of list linking to more narrowly focused religious organization sub-lists. I will be working on this wen I have the spare time. --Devin murphy (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

:::: I'll withdraw my delete !vote, since an effort is being attempted by the person who urges a keep. Still, I think that you'll find that Devin and is right, that this works better as a disambiguation page than as an attempt to list all the religious organizations of the world on one page. I think that the person who started the page, as well as others who thought of improving it, soon realized that it was a bigger project than they had envisioned. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Newer version is much improved. Notable enough topic, meets all requirements for a Wikipedia list. List of major religious organizations, or List of religious organizations listed on Wikipedia perhaps would work also. Dream Focus 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

: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.