Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of converts to Christianity from atheism


 * 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. A rough consensus of participants argued this article qualifies as a policy-compliant spinout. j⚛e deckertalk 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

List of converts to Christianity from atheism

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

There are several problems with this list. First, it is a content fork of List of converts to Christianity, which already covers converts from other religions and no religion. Second, it is an overly specific cross-categorization, which is in violation of WP:NOTDIR. -Scottywong | gab _ 21:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings either way, although I've struggled to find a way to consolidate all the articles that fall into the same basic category: Former Foo, Converts to Bar, Converts to Bar from Foo, etc. I tried and have miserably failed and I'm sorry. Do forgive me. Ncboy2010 (talk)
 * It is not a content fork. List of converts to Christianity links to it - it does not have a separate list of such converts. WP:OC implies such a categorization is appropriate. This instance of an intersection is not trivial but rather encyclopedic. Hugetim (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note also that this is part of a serious of such lists: Template:Lists_of_converts Hugetim (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: in no way, shape or form is this a content fork. "List of converts to Christianity" is essentially a main article with few list entries. Furthermore there are no ex-atheists in "List of converts to Christianity"! Invocation of NOTDIR doesn't hold water as the intersection of Christians/atheists is in fact "culturally significant." Nomination rationale is unfounded. – Lionel (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the name is problematic, however, because it implies atheism is a religion. This is a favorite talking point among some Christians, but factually, that really can't be said to be true. I can't come up with a nice, concise alternative though. Maybe... Formerly atheist Christians? --BDD (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Atheism is certainly a belief system. One can convert to or from it. -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that Atheism is something from which one can convert.  Vertium   (talk to me)  01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Article does not seem to be a content fork, but rather a spinout to prevent excessive length of the parent. BDD's comment about the sometimes dubious nature of atheism as a religion is a good one, but I think the US government as defined atheism as a religion for their purposes, and that might be enough to call atheism a religion in some instances. I don't think it is necessarily ennough for this article, but, hey, I'm wrong about various things several times a day. List of atheists who converted to Christianity might be a bit better as a title, because that doesn't necessarily imply atheism is a religion. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I reserve judgement about this article being kept, because at the moment I'm rather intrigued to know why you guys think any of these "converting" articles are notable. They all seem rather POV/trivial/non-completable IMO....--Coin945 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of your reservations aren't particularly relevant to policies and guidelines. Indicating a person changed their religious beliefs is in many cases rather clearly non-trivial, but in some cases even vital to their notability. There might be a bit of POV in terms of which articles get created, but that is a problem all content in wikipedia faces. The fact that a list cannot be completed is also basically irrelevant to policies and guidelines. As long as people continue to exist, most lists of people will remain at least potentially incomplete, but such lists exist anyway. There might be a decent point about whether this specific list as a separate article individually meets notability guidelines, however. Regarding your own opinions, well, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but we tend to put policies and guidelines above them. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * These issues are sufficiently contentious or difficult-to-categorize I could see getting rid of all of them, as well as the categories, but I think that could be a massive undertaking and likely not worth the effort.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - In order for a list to be notable per WP:LISTN, it must have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". So, can you show multiple, independent, reliable sources which specifically discuss the topic of atheists converting to Christianity (as distinct from other non-atheist converts to Christianity, and not sources which simply discuss one particular person or group of people and their conversion to Christianity).  For that matter, are there sources which specifically discuss the topic of Confucianists to Christianity?  How about converts to Islam from Zoroastrianism?  If there are not such sources, then these standalone lists should not exist.  That's not to say that there can't be a section at List of converts to Christianity, but there should not be a standalone list for every possible combination of religions and non-religions.  The length of List of converts to Christianity is nowhere near long enough that it needs to be split into multiple lists.  -Scottywong | express _  23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Two of the books here, Who's Who in Hell and Famous Conversions, might serve as the required sources for this list. And I do note that I myself said that the lists required specific sources above. I'm not saying that these sources necessarily qualify, particular the latter one, which includes other conversions, but the first one might, particularly if Antonio Casao Ibanez, who is said to have gathered such material, published it separately in multiple sources. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I lean toward upmerging this, plus the ones on Judaism and Islam, back to List of former atheists and agnostics. However I'm not making any kind of verdict or anything on that.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nom makes no sense, as this listis a sublist of List of converts to Christianity (a possible merge back to the parent list is not a matter for AfD). This list is well-referenced and satisfies list criteria, including WP:LISTN (there's plenty of sources on converts as a group). I would oppose T. Anthony's suggestion of merging into List of former atheists and agnostics, because that makes it harder to find people who converted to a specific religion (Christianity, in this case). -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Deletion is therefore not an appropriate action and our editing policy is to handle such issues via ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I would certainly support keeping this list. It is serving an extremely useful and informative purpose. As for the suggestion that this is just a fork of converts to Christianity in general, that does not really register that to have a generic list like that would not tell us the religious affiliation (if any) of the people before they converted to Christianity. So, my vote would be a very strong yes, we should quite emphatically keep this list. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The nom is wrong on both counts: it is not a fork in the sense of a duplicate, but a properly constructed child article. Secondly, the list is quite long enough to justify its retention.  If there is duplication, the right course is to purge the general article.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - has value.  Vertium   (talk to me)  01:19, 4 July 2012 (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.