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.

This request was retracted by the nominator in favor of talk page discussion. Discussion started on this page regarding the reorganization of the majority of the articles listed in this AfD can be found on Talk:List of Muslims. Those who weighed in on the debate here are asked to take a look at Talk:List of Muslims and a proposal regarding the organization of several articles and lists below. joturner 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim athletes[edit]

This should be a category that lists Muslims athletes, not its own article. joturner 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason stated above: they all are lists that should be categories instead. Some of them may just need to be deleted without being replaced by categories.

Note that the above does not fall under cardstacking since, if you were to look at each individual article nominated for deletion, you will see they are all simple lists.

Yes, take a specialy hard look at Muslim soldiers, Muslim scholars (who already cleared a AFD) and List of Islamic philosophers who can NOT be categorized.--Striver 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striver's Additions Follow

wtf, why not including this as well:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you forgot Islamic scholars --Striver 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Delete and form category if it doesn't exist already. Bobby1011 04:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. Even then, some people think that it isn't necessary to categorize by religion, unless it affects their public life. In most cases of sportspeople, it isn't.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so in Islam. Sharia penetrates every single aspect of life, down to personal hygiene. Dont forget the hijab rules, and rules against alcohol and other drugs. --Striver 05:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople generally don't drink alcohol during sporting activity; hijab isn't a big deal, as sportspoeple aren't characterized by their fashion statements while playing tennis.as for drugs, I guess we could have a category for drug cheats couldn't we??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would be an issue what you wear. I believe some Islamic traditional dress effects performance in track-and-field as well as certain other sports. I believe the Iranian women at the Olympics, for a time anyway, only competed in shooting because it was the one area unaffected by their dress codes.--T. Anthony 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whats up with the deletion frenzy? Guys, we all know that categories are great, but they have their weaknesses. They cant included extra info, like birth date and field of proffesion, something that a article can do. I mean, take a look at Islamic scholars. A category will never achiev that kind of information. Further, why dont you go and delet and categories all other article here: list of lists. This is totaly unfair, why dont you take a grab att List of jews as well? --Striver 04:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't put Islamic scholars up for deletion. And the articles listed in the List of Jews article have more information. Could the articles above potentially become that informative? By presenting this request, I saying I think not. Many of these articles have been up for over two months, but they are just lists. joturner 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? Is that a new rule? If a stub is not de-stubed for two month, then it should be deleted? Give me break! --Striver 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete hardly any content.--CltFn 04:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CltFn, i hope you are going to vote the same on a eventual afd for all the lists in List of Jews? Since when does one delet a article that does not have enoght content? Shall we start deleting all stubs as well? --Striver 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

look at this Muslim scholars This page has been empty since its creation ,how about filling in some information? Right now it is just a list of links, and thus should propably be a category page . We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too --CltFn 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim scholars is an entry way to other lists, some of which I worked on. If you want to create a Category:Lists of Muslims to replace it I'd be good with that. As the idea seems to be just delete Muslim lists I think this is essentially a form of bias. We have a fair amount of Muslims at Wikipedia, but not all that many so Muslim lists may not be as well-cared for. The idea that that makes them deleteworthy is silly. Or I'm way off here. Check with some at Category:Muslim Wikipedians to get a sense of whether they want these or how they feel about it.--T. Anthony 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too

Yeah, i agree, if we are going to vote for all thos Muslim lists, lets bring them ALL on! --Striver 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand unless we are confident we have articles on each of the notable Muslims in each category. I, for one, am not. Capitalistroadster 05:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalistroadster, note that almost all of the links on each of the pages nominated for deletion are in fact blue links and therefore have articles for them. joturner 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm sorry, I must agree that the lists are rather unencyclopedic and generally devoid of content. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I need to think more about the general issue of lists vs. categories. Neutral for now. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 05:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-This is a ridiculously over the top delete effort that I think should never have happened. Even if some of these do deserve deletion there's no way all of them do. I've been here long enough that I get how intensely some hate/despise/loathe religion related lists, but they do serve a purpose. Policy on lists say lists are valid if the items are important to the topic or contributed to it in some way. To pick one I have on my watchlist, List of Christians, much of it is founders of several denominations too small have denominational lists of their own. Or important religious poets and missionaries of said faith. As well as being a link to other, often well made, lists. Things like List of Muslim scholars is also clearly relevant to Islamic history. Side issue why doesn't anyone ever AfD the numerous lists that are actually stupid? (Although the original for Muslim athletes makes some sense except that I thought it was already deleted)--T. Anthony 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lists and categories serve completely different functions. The ways that lists differ from categories include: 1) they allow the all-important redlinks, that let us know which articles still need to be written; and 2) they can be annotated with critical facts such as birth and death date, country of origin, single-line-summary, or whatever else might be pertinent. There is an enormous number of useful lists on Wikipedia which contain information you could never find by browsing a category. By the way I strongly suggest renaming Muslim athletes to List of Muslim athletes to be consistent. Antandrus (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the naming of Muslim athletes see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim athletes--T. Anthony 06:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72 houres AFD with no Muslim editors voting? No wonder it got deleted... --Striver 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Striver. See Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics#Featured lists for how lists can improve to become wonderful articles. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original articles per joturner, keep articles added by Striver. Yid613 07:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Keep all articles, including those "added" by Striver.[reply]

Strong Keep Lists are helpful. They provide details and clarification not found in categories, specifically in cases like List of atheists. --TheMidnighters 06:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Possibly Categorize or Paradigm Shift) Lists are helpful, but obviously there are many problems with incomplete research, verification, etc. Take, for example, the List of atheists (one I've followed more than the rest, mostly because of the volatile content constantly being edited) - first of all, there are many instances of people that are or were listed therein where the case is not particularly clear (a meandering blurb about uncertainty about the afterlife, and a ranting diatribe against organized religion, for example, do not necessarily indicate that the speaker is an atheist) and further, there seems to be a bit of confusion as to what constitutes a "major" atheist (usually an outspoken one who has made contributions to the cause). In short, there are too many false conclusions and misunderstandings, and not enough verification. Othersider 07:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many articles (not just lists) have these types of problems, but deleting them isn't a very good solution. I think it's better to have them, flawed as they are, than be completely without them. As long as the subject covered in the list is verifiable, maintainable and provides more information than categorization does, there's a good reason to keep them. --TheMidnighters 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to List of Muslim _______. --Ter e nc e Ong 08:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Irishpunktom\^talk 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that WP:POINT also applies to Striver's baseless additions of AfD tags to List of Christians, List of Hindus, List of atheists, List of Buddhists, and List of Jews, just to get revenge after some proposed that Muslim lists be deleted, as can be shown by this comment: Yeah, i agree, if we are going to vote for all thos Muslim lists, lets bring them ALL on! --Striver 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)? Yid613 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeps, course it does. --Irishpunktom\^talk 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I might consider deletion proposals for some of the above, there are some really obvious keepers among them, and the wholesale proposal isn't helpful. Lists are not automatically useless just because you could also have a category. Bring them on separately again if you must, and argue each on its own merits. Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: the above is for the articles originally included by nominator. Speedy keep, of course, for those added out of process by Striver. Lukas ^(T.|@) 12:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, lists are very usefull in their own right, and fullfill functions that Categories don't.PHG 13:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...the categories are simply too broad...it makes more sense to have lists of Shi'ite Muslims, or Sunni Muslims, or Presbyterian Christians, etc. KHM03 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably should be renamed "List of Muslim athletes", but keep). I see no major difference between this and for instance List of Christians in Entertainment and Media. This nomination smells a bit funny. // Liftarn 14:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those who suggest to delete it and did not convince me. gidonb 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Striver. -- S iva1979^{Talk to me} 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Categorize All are listcruft, including Striver's referenced "List Of Jews", 'List of Christians" et al.--Isotope23 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and censure Striver for violating WP:POINT.--Isotope23 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep it's fine as a list. It is useful. The ones that begin with "Muslim" can be made into categories while others the begin with "List of" are useful as articles because they allow information to be added into the list. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though i can't see much significance in Muslim athletes but lists for muslim historians and philosophers must be kept. As for listing versus categorizing, in my opinion categorizing is better but unfortunately most people-related categories in wikipedia are very messy. Biographies are categorized according to date of birth, death, nationality, location, religion, university alumni,prizes,...etc. When categorizing an article -especially for a very notable person or someone with multi-talents- usually one or more categories are missed. However, same articles are not likely to be missed in specialized lists. Consider Henri Bergson as an example, a Nobel laureate and not categorized in french writers or philosophers!. Nevertheless, in the List of French people, Henri Bergson appears as a french philosopher. Also, as User: Antandrus previously stated, lists allow for red links. So, for now i support all lists.--Wedian 21:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all the above lists and add categories for them. Lists and Categories are two different beasts that do two different jobs, as per T. Anthony's comments Jcuk 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People de-taging AFD articles in mid AFD[edit]

Wtf? You AGAIN removed my afd notices? FFS! Who are YOU to determine if i may or may not add a article to afd?! The articels WILL remain, removing them in mid afd i a blatant violation! Dont get me started on List of Jews, that even the nominator supported for afd a while! Not removing the list of atheist clearly shows that you have a agenda in remonving SOME of them.--Striver 11:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please, Striver, be civil. If the afd notice is removed from the original page, the discussion still remains on the AfD page. Simply add it back onto the original page. Kareeser|^Talk! 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver I think some of the ones you added were unjustified and was kind of a "making a point" violation. Although I think you should be the one to withdraw the AfD's on those. Fact is the original proposal was extreme enough on it's own that I think it would've attracted "keep" voters on its own merit. You maybe needed something to get our attention, but there were better ways to do that.--T. Anthony 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude. Check the history for "List of atheists" again, and very closely. Actually, I did remove the tag. Sorry, your "agenda" theory doesn't hold up. Removing notices "mid AFD" because they were never nominated "AFD" in the first place. Each article you nominate has to be given a separate AfD page - and you have to explain the merits of each nomination - and sorry, anger and want of vengeance because Muslim lists are nominated isn't good enough. It seems to be concensus that you actions here are an inappropriate violation of WP:POINT, so I wouldn't make it worse by tampering with WP:CIV. The real question is: who are you to disrupt and mess around with wikipedia in line with your own personal agenda? Yid613 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I left anger get the better of me, and in what i perceived as injusties, i broke WP:POINT. However, i would like to say that there was two (2) people that seriously considered voting down list of jews. Does that make it a little little little bit less bad?`

Ill try to trust the common sense of wikipedians a bit more in the future. I have had some ugly disputes with user:Zora over time, and since nobody seemed to care that i was right and she was wrong, i started to distrust people. I apologise. Feel free to remove any, some or all article on this AFD.

I also apologise for not being civil. I did brake WP:Point, but people broke the "do not remove afd tag" rule, and since people actualy did take my move seriously and voted on them, i perceived it as taken as a legit move. I would also like to point out that i added list of Jews after another user suggested it. That made me feel even more angry.

In short, a user suggested me to break wp:point, and another endorsed the inclusion. That made me confident that the move was accepted as legitimat. People trying to undo that against afd rules angered me and made me uncivil.

For the third time, i apologise. --Striver 21:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Striver, do not tamper with my request for deletion. Just because you have a problem with me nominating a large number of articles started by you for deletion does not give you to the right to start adding articles. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. joturner 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, dont remove my additions, you dont OWN this afd! If you can add to it, i also have the right to add to it!

DO NOT REMOVE MY EDITS! --Striver 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not disrupting to make a point, im just following your line of afding all list of religious people - That is only fair, lets vote for real, i want to get ridd of those list as well. --Striver 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, please create your own request for deletion. You are clearly adding those other articles to sabotage this request for deletion. joturner 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go "please create your own request"! You dont OWN this one, to tell me to creat my OWN. You made the rules: Add multiple list of people by religion. CltFn agreed with you and proposed to include list of jews. I did as he proposed, and for fairness sake, expanded it. --Striver 05:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to waste no more energy on this; just keep adding articles if it makes you happy. I don't see how I'm being unfair. Are you saying I'm biased against Muslims? joturner 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joturner, dont remove afd tags while voting is in progress. You are violating me and CltFn inclusion of List of Jews. --Striver 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved List of Jews to the list of the ones I endorse since I do actually agree with that one. joturner 05:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed List of Jews from my endorsed list because I fear it will comprimise the request for deletion; it's not as clear cut as the other ones. joturner 05:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, im saying you are AFD lists on random basis, looks like you dont want to see lists, period. Why else include Muslim soldiers, who is far from a single list? If it being simple is what bothers you, why dont you spend your energy fixing it, instead of trying to destroy peoples effort? Do you think the underdeveloped list came from nowhere? People actualy spent hours assembling the list, and you want to destroy it only since its not flashy enough? Since when do we delet stuff only since its stubby?

And you did such a poor job at picking the "stuby only" articles that you included Muslim soldiers, Muslim scholars (who already cleared a AFD) and List of Islamic philosophers who can NOT be categorized. This gave the obivous result of people assuming you just wanted to delet them since they where lists, period. Why else do you think CltFn said We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too? Well, i abliged him. Dont spend energy destroying peoples work, we have Zora for that. Im not sitting here to waist time, im sitting here to make Wikipedia better, and having people doing their best to destroy my and other peoples efforts only since they dont approve of how it looks RIGHT NOW is not doing this a good day. --Striver 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What i wrote is perfectly illustrated in you momentarly endorsing list of Jews. Cant you see people spent time creating that? you think it can be improved? Well do it, dont deleted it! --Striver 05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the list of lists article seems to contradict my rationale for my request for deletion. Maybe it is a personal vendetta against lists of this type. Or maybe it's that the over-listing for the Muslim articles irk me. Or maybe it's that Striver is rubbing me the wrong way. I don't know, but I certainly believe that, at the very least, the majority of the articles nominated for deletion are unnecessary and worthy of deletion or moving to categorization. joturner 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, i have been heated up on this issue, but from the bottom of my hart, i never inteded to uppset you. I was sitting here and working on a part of wikipedia that hardly anyone is touching, the lists, since 03:02, 21 February 2006 [1], when all the sudden all hell breaks lose at 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC) with this. All the sudden, every single thing that multiple editors have put their valuable time on is going to be deleted for not being perfect? That made furious!

But putting that aside, you are my brother in Islam and humanity, and i hope to be at least friends with you after this. --Striver 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations[edit]

Might I suggest you all use this chance to re-rationalize the whole Lists vs. Categories scheme for all these subjects. It does seem arbitrary and odd to delete all the Muslim-oriented lists but to keep other ethnic-religious designated lists. Please form a new policy page, discuss, announce on the mailing lists, etc. But edit warring over this is bound to get ugly. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiment excatly: "You dont like it? Fix it! Creat a project page, dont afd the whole bunch, making people pissed while you are doing it!" --Striver 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists can do things categories do not. At Wikipedia:Featured lists there are a few that involve religion or people. There is List of Archbishops of Canterbury, List of popes, List of Presidents of the United States, List of notable brain tumor patients, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological), and a few others. There are some lists I've worked on that I think are more similar to the lists up for AfD here and are of fairly good quality. For example List of Catholic authors.--T. Anthony 06:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this survives the request for deletion, I am at least reccomending we better organize the pages regarding Muslims. The List of Jews page seems much better organized. Perhaps would could put all the lists onto the List of Muslims page so they are much more accessible. The confusing linking structure through the current lists regarding Muslims makes the lists look like a disorganized and arbitrary. joturner 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss that on the talk page. --Striver 20:55, 21 February 2006 (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.