Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hindus


 * 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. --Ezeu 18:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Hindus
From Hindu: "As of 2005, there were approximately 970 million Hindus." Sounds like a category would be better. Just zis Guy you know? 18:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment How 'bout List of christians and List of Muslims? List of people by belief... (I see veganism is a religion too.) I'm not a great fan of classifying people by religion; it is hard to verify and means different things (especially in places where religion = legal system, conversion = death penalty). But consistency with lists of notable practitioners is probably desirable. Weregerbil 18:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It should remain. I agree with Weregerbill, there are so many lists like this on wikipedia and List of Hindus is just one of them. - Holy Ganga  talk [[Image:India flag 300.png|30px]] 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The existence of one bad article has never been a persuasive justification for having another. Just zis Guy you know? 20:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I never said that. I said i agree with Weregerbill. Consistency with lists of notable practitioners is probably desirable. List of some very Famous and important Hindu, Muslim, Christian , Atheist etc. personalities is not a bad Idea. - Holy Ganga  talk [[Image:India flag 300.png|30px]] 20:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To have a category is fine. These lists have to be maintained by hand, and they are potentially vast - especially this one. Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, too broad of a category to be a useful list. Catamorphism 20:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * strong keep per my normal list/category argument. Maybe rename to "list of notable hindus" Jcuk 21:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Which argument is what? That it is better to have a list where they can be added without editors on the original article noticing, to allow for POV claims to be surreptitoously made?  Oh, wait, it's that they could be cited, isn't it?  But not one of these is.  And indeed hardly any lists have citations.  Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment resorting to being rude and sarcastic is hardly a way to sway people. You know fully well my argument is that Wikipedia guidelines state categorically that lists are just as useful as categories.


 * Delete. Too broad to be useful. Dr Zak 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggestions in order of preference:
 * 1: List all list-of-SomeReligion in one AfD and get rid of all of them. (FAT FRIGGIN' CHANCE!)
 * 2: Keep all. Can't make an exception for one (rather major) religion.
 * 3: Start picking religions; Christianity and Islam allowed, Hinduism disallowed. (FAT FRIGGIN' CHANCE!)
 * Are there other alternatives? Per "FAT FRIGGIN' CHANCE!" (or WP:SNOW) I'm thinking keep unless workable alternatives suggested. And make it a rule: any redlinks in list-of-SomeReligion will be removed, no mercy, no questions asked, absolutely no exceptions. Weregerbil 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as useful list. Possibly rename to List of notable Hindus. Capitalistroadster 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - how could this or any of the lists be useful? "I'm bored -- I wonder who's a Hindu?" I feel all these "List of 'insert religion here'" (and many other similarly broad lists) are useless and care quite handily handled by Categories, and if people want to indulge their list fetish the category pages work quite well. That said, I abstain from voting on this one as I feel it's an issue that needs to be addressed at the policy level, not AFD. I agree 100% that we can't be picking religions here; but I can't in good conscience vote keep, either. 23skidoo 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Weregerbil - if List of Christians and List of Muslims are accceptable, then there is no justification at all for deleting this one. Whether any of them is useful, is another point entirely.Staffelde 23:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and I have no idea why "List of Christians/Muslims" is not deleted either. Of course, an AfD nomination for either would have a bunch of people up in arms, but you have my vote. Danny Lilithborne 01:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about deleting the List of Jews? One set of fireproof underpants won't be enough! You'll have my vote for any "List of Practitioners of such-and-such a religion. Dr Zak 02:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename to list of notable Hindus. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  04:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete together with the others mentioned above (and note that List of Jews is actually a list of lists of Jews. Yikes. -- Hirudo 14:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Categories maintain themselves, lists do not. Stifle (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per Weregerbil --Dangerous-Boy 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep unless all lists classifying people by their religion are deleted! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep as long as it is made absolutely clear, as on the other "lists by denomination", that only people who are notable for being Hindus should be listed, not people who are notable for some unrelated reason. dab (&#5839;) 16:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all the lists of denomination and replace with List of figures in Christian theology, List of figures in Jewish theology, List of figures in Muslim theology, etc., etc. There is absolutely nothing notable about all these people's religion unless they played a role in the development of the religion.--M @ r ē ino 16:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Replace with Category:Hindus if possible. --Slgrandson 16:25, 17 May 2006 (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.