Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cult and new religious movement researchers


 * 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. Carlosguitar 08:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

List of cult and new religious movement researchers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is a list of an existing category "Category:Researchers of cults and new religious movements". Delete as duplicate information. S facets 23:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Since it's a category already, this doesn't add anything Mandsford 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A list can always exist parallel to a category: there is nothing in WP policies or guidelines that says otherwise. This list does have information the category does not have: it is not a duplicate.  It organizes the people by their profession and it includes people for which no current article exists. Hmains 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 05:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. - The category seems to be used for a more inclusive definition, and by default we can always fall back on a more stringent definition here at the List, which already notes the need for sources from WP:RS cites for those articles that do not assert notability on the topic within their own articles. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment I have made some new suggestions at Talk:List of cult and new religious movement researchers, which, if followed and agreed to by consensus, will make the list version much more useful than its current version, and certainly much different and more useful than the category (Though I still believe we should keep the category as well.) Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep. Categories and lists serve different purposes. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 06:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list is going to be a nightmare to maintain, but the talk page contains guidelines that should ensure that it remains useful--- if they are adhered to. (Two major issues with "cult" is that one man's religion is another man's belly laugh, and a cult is a denomination other than that into which one was born.)Things can be in the category, but not the list.  Likewise, things can be in the list, but not the category.  jonathon 17:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We could hash that out in the talk page, essentially limiting it to mention of some kind in what we'd have to probably limit to an academic journal article. Thus, it would be the publications themselves making the distinctions between "cults", "destructive cults", and "new religious movements."  Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 17:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC).


 * Strong keep - as noted above, a list can make textual additions to a name which a category cannot, which would often be useful in such subjects as this. Granted, the qualifications may be problematic, but they can also be better worked out on a list than a category. And, actually, I seem to remember reading we prefer lists to categories anyway. I really can't see any good reason to delete the list, although maybe the deletion of the category could make more sense. John Carter 13:16, 30 October 2007 (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.