Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bibliography of books critical of Christianity


 * 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 keep. ..... But prune it or the next discussion might well conclude its not maintainable Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Bibliography of books critical of Christianity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikpedia is not an indiscriminate list of things. Some of these books are notable and have their own articles. Most of them are not. There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list. ... disco spinster   talk  17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ...  disco spinster   talk  17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ...  disco spinster   talk  17:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's not delete  a list that has valid entries -- that would be content discrimination. If you want to challenge a specific item, then explain your reasons. A blanket claim that one or more unspecified titles is 'not notable' is a poor reason for saying the article itself is unworthy.  Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all items that do not have a wikipedia article. --Bduke (talk) 05:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" from WP:LISTN, also nominator states "There is no criteria to determine what should be on the list." and yet the lead sentence states "This is a bibliography of literature treating the topic of criticism of Christianity, ...".
 * Comment: the entirety of the sentence you quoted is "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." I believe that is more relevant to topics like List of mayors of Yerevan or something like that. Mayors of Yerevan are notable, even if each individual mayor does not have a Wikipedia article, and there is a clear scope. Lists of books about (whatever topic) could go on forever and include pretty much anything that anybody writes. If there is no limitation to, e.g., books that already have articles, then it is an indiscriminate list. The same function (of grouping articles of books critical of (whatever)) could be achieved with a category. ... disco spinster   talk  15:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * KEEP but remove any entry that doesn't have a Wikipedia article for the writer or the book. Rename to be List of of books critical of Christianity.   D r e a m Focus  18:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am not formally voting on this because I hold a personal POV against the subject. Nevertheless, this list is an unclassified hotchpotch of works.  It would be much better if classified according to the nature of the criticism.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, and prune – books critical of Christianity is a notable topic, and many books critical of the religion are notable too. However, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate catalog of all books; the bars of notability we already have set topics that deserve recognition from random ones. Pruning the article of non-notable books avoids the status of this list as an indiscriminate catalog. The name "bibliography" implies that this list is some sort of indiscriminate catalog, so it should be renamed to "List of books..." as discospinster said. – UnnamedUser (talk; contribs) 23:53, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. and trim a little. There is no need to limit it to those with a separate encyclopedia article. A list is, in fact, a good substitute for such separate articles.  DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 26 December 2019 (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.