Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Church of Christ Scientists


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splash talk 17:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Church of Christ Scientists
Another list of professionals with a religious affiliation.

The fact that the people listed here were menbers of the Christian Science Church had no bearing on their work. Pilatus 14:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nor was it meant to. We have lists of Mormons, Muslims, etc. Why is this any different? (I am very much not a member of this religion and find some of its principles vaguely ridiculous, but what of it?)--T. Anthony 14:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Their faith is meant to have a bearing on their work. If this listed all members of the Church of Christ, Scientist indiscriminately this would be a directory. But it isn't. It's an encyclopedia. Pilatus 15:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This could be said of any list of any kind. Presumably then List of Quakers, list of Unificationists, and others should also be deleted. That said I did edit it to show how it was relevant in some of these cases.(I have now edited further to show that even more clearly)--T. Anthony 16:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Anyone notice that the three anon votes on this page all trace back to Atlanta? What does that indicate? Sock Puppetry? Or are Atlantans just more comfortable expressing their thinking from behind white sheets? Let's discuss. -- JJay 17:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for same reasons stated in other religious lists. Make it a category if you really want to divide people up this way. 23skidoo 15:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: you can't annotate a category listing. Charles Matthews 16:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Also "Important people to the religion who have been very public supporters belong in the article on Christian Science." is an argument to merge. Adding over 20 names to that article seems a tad odd to me, but if you want to merge I can accept that.(I'm tempted to change my mind and actually vote on this)--T. Anthony 16:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if the information is valid. &mdash; RJH 16:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; but I have to agree that this list shoudn't be a directory, it should be a list of important people to the religion who have been very public supporters. Some of these people's articles don't mention it at all.  For instance, I only know Bette Nesmith Graham is a Christian Scientist because another biography of her mentions it and her setting up of multiple foundations, so I assume she's set up some for the church.  A random article I checked, Hank Paulson, mentions he's devout but nothing else.  I think that for this list to be useful it shouldn't just list anyone in Wikipedia who's a member of the church, as that's more what categories are for.  &mdash; Laura Scudder  &#9742;  16:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Important people to the religion who have been very public supporters" belong in the article on Christian Science. Simply tracking which biographies in Wikipedia identify their subject as Christian Scientists should be done with categories. The only purpose I can see served by lists like these to spur pride in a religion (or ethnicity or other group) by celebrating the collective achievements of its adherents, and I do not see how that can possibly concord with neutrality. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to reiterate though that that was not my intent when I created this. I am not Christian Scientist. In fact in a test I took Christian Science was listed with Scientology as "religions you have the least agreement with." I had and have no interest in inspiring their pride, shame, or whatever. I just thought it was useful if anyone ever needs to know who is Christian Scientists as I the Adherents.com list of CS members is untrustworthy.--T. Anthony 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The note I added is a bit crude but it maybe explains why I created this list. I also did some work on it.--T. Anthony 10:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete just as random as List of Methodist dentists and List of Sikh plumbers. Durova 21:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Umm very much no. All this list does is list members of this religion. A better comparison is to say that it's as random as List of Prominent Sikhs itself as that article also subdivided into professions.(You certain Sikhism is as important to say Parminder Nagra as Christian Science was to even Joan Crawford?)--T. Anthony 16:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. Jtmichcock 23:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete plain ridiculous 65.9.143.76 23:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if you look through List of lists/uncategorized or Category:Incomplete lists you can find topics that truly are ridiculous. In least this is a group of over a 100,000 people that had some effect on history. Can you say the same for List of celebrities who have worn dreadlocks or the List of Japanese double entendres that has only two names both of which are essentially unreadable?--T. Anthony 09:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also a List of fictional left-handed characters--T. Anthony 11:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Nandesuka 14:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Off-topic comment According to our naming conventions, if we wanted a list of physicists, biologists, and chemists who were adherents of the religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy, what would the article be titled? Christian Scientific Scientological Scientist 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Cute. However it's not a concern because there are no prominent scientists who are members of the Church of Christ Science. In least none at Wikipedia and I looked very hard for one. I even tried Christian Science related sites.(I created this list) The closest I found is the woman who invented Liquid Paper who was mentioned above.--T. Anthony 00:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete random. freestylefrappe 16:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep-I got inspired and did alot of work. Enough so I care enough to vote now.(I hadn't voted before, just stated why I was for it. I'm done doing that now. Well except to ask that people look at the current version)--T. Anthony 16:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay I did add a link to the Salon.com article.--T. Anthony 21:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete We need to clean up wikipedia. 65.10.44.158 22:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in present form. Not just a list, a real article, discusses a somewhat different topic than Church of Christ, Scientist Dpbsmith (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow I did better then I thought at explaining/fixing. And yes I agree on the title problems mentioned below. Although awkward I think "List of Christian Science adherents" would be acceptable, to me in least. As long as we make sure both "Christian" and "Science" are capitalized. The sites I've seen of Christians in science tend to emphasize the importance of that for differentiation and maybe that could be in the article itself.--T. Anthony 02:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment If kept, the title needs a bit of thought. As I suspected, the official name of the church is Church of Christ, Scientist with a comma. I've been clicking around their website for about five minutes now, with no luck, trying to find out what phrase Christian Scientists use to refer to themselves. I actually believe the site may be sidestepping this; it usually just says "members," members of what being of course understood. Anyway: IMHO
 * List of Church of Christ Scientists doesn't work because without a comma it's not the name of the church. In fact, there's a serious ambiguity, because a Church of Christ scientist (with a small s) could mean a physicist who is a member of a local Church of Christ congregation.
 * List of Church of Christ, Scientists doesn't work either.
 * List of Christian Scientists would work if not for the ambiguity problem. One could argue that there isn't an ambiguity problem because a "Christian Scientist" with a capital S means an adherent to Mary Baker Eddy's denomination whereas as "Christian scientist" with a small s means a scientist who is a Christian, but... that argument would be silly.
 * List of Christian Science adherents is OK but awkward.
 * List of adherents to the Church of Christ, Scientist ditto.
 * As they use the word "members" would that work? I mean it's still a bit awkward sounding, but possibly better then this title. "List of Church of Christ Scientists" having the comma deal wrong and I suppose is possibly begging a question. (Like "List of Church of Christ Scientists...what? People, churches, organizations, other?)--T. Anthony 06:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously List of members won't do... you're thinking something along the lines of
 * List of Church of Christ, Scientist members
 * List of members of Church of Christ, Scientist
 * I think the second is OK, not great... sounds too much like it's trying to be a list of all of them...
 * List of Christian Scientists (religion) ?
 * Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it survives I think it can now just be called "List of Christian Scientists." Any list of Christians in science will now be written to be less confusing with Christian science, if such lists are allowed to exist at all.--T. Anthony 06:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * List of Christian Scientists works for me, with a small explanatory note and appropriate link at the top. I think it's the most natural title. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Present state of list may provide valid info lacking from site. Therefore prefer to err on the side of caution. --JJay 18:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Aww thanks. I promise from now on to be a great deal more cautious in creating lists like this. Like making sure the names contributed meaningfully to the topic for one, per WP:NOT, and annotating or sourcing better.--T. Anthony 03:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete This list HAS to be a joke. 72.144.71.234 04:55, 23 November 2005 (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.