Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional religions


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 07:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

List of fictional religions

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Category-as-a-list. Extremely bare-bones and uninformative “article” that is missing probably the overwhelming majority of examples and has no justification for existing (i.e. provides no information independent of listing examples and duplicating the navigational function of a category) Dronebogus (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 03:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - many readers never use categories and navigate the usual and obvious way, via wikilinks in articles. There is no prohibition on list articles, and a large percentage of them have matching categories for those who like such things. The topic of fictional religions is plainly notable and it is right that we have a list of them. It can obviously be extended and improved, but that's normal editing, not a deletion rationale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * “Topic is notable” does not mean list is notable. Lists are almost always little more than cheap, poor quality substitutes for articles. Dronebogus (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, WP:LISTN more or less exactly says that if a topic is notable, a corresponding list is notable. Not every notable topic may warrant a corresponding list, but then there have to be valid arguments against it other than notability. Daranios (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My other valid arguments are that it’s impossible to maintain and not actually useful (see my response to Dream Focus) Dronebogus (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect or weak keep to Fictional religion which I just started. The main concept is notable, but a list needs to meet WP:LISTN, which this one is not shown to do - instead what we have is a WP:NOTTVTROPES/WP:IPC failure (and if you don't like essays, MOS:TRIVIA says hello). PS. In all honesty, I think this list can be salvaged using sources such as those I already cite in the article I am writing, but, well, someone would need to add those sources and reference the entries. PPS. Listicles: 10 Fictional Religions From Movies and TV That Don't Involve Jedi or the Force (Gizmodo), 7 Most Detailed Fictional Video Game Religions (TheGamer)... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to the new article. Agree with Piotrus this is good topic for an article, but this can be covered in a main article (even if a better-sourced list with context) rather than needing a stand-alone list like this. I removed the non-religions of Jedi and Sith, and I'm not sure the Cthulu and Skaro cults really fit in either. Reywas92Talk 14:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn’t Jediism a religion directly based on the fictional Jedi teachings, therefore making Jedi a religion? Dronebogus (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Jediism could be in article I suppose, I don't think that means Jedi is a religion though. Sith isn't a religion either, it's a an order, but if that term is going to be applied so loosely to be a nefarious organization with a set of rituals, I'd prefer to delete the list rather than merge it. Reywas92Talk 14:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Reverted your recent edits per above but I’m not sure it’s worth it since merging to the new, actual article seems obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Valid navigational list. More useful than a category since it tells you what series something is from.   D r e a m Focus  16:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Marginally, Marginally more useful. Because people can’t click on links? Dronebogus (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Fictional religion or Religion in fiction, per Piotrus. This is better treated as a proper article, as Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVTROPES. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep So far I have not seen a convincing policy-based argument for deletion. The fact that it's duplicating a category is specifically not a reason for deletion according to WP:CLN. Like and  I think this is a valid navigational list. It does provide the source for each fictional religion, which the category can't. That's marginally useful for someone who is already familiar with the topic, but quite useful for someone not so familiar: E.g. I would not have know that the Cult of Skaro is from Dr. Who. Knowing that, I can decide if I am interested in that or not. Sure I could also click all links and read all topics, but it's better to have a navigation tool. The list restricts itself to entries discussed elsewhere on Wikipedia i.e. blue links, and one with a secondary source, so it is not an indiscriminate list in the vein of TV Tropes. In that regard I actually don't think that it cannot be completed, if it mainly strives to collect all fictional religions present on Wikipedia. More importantly, being incomplete or difficult to maintain is not a reason for deletion, as based on that reasoning we would probably need to delete a majority of Wikipedia articles; also WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and Wikipedia is WP:Work in progress. If someone is particularly annoyed by the possibly incomplete state, the policy-based solution is not deletion but WP:SOFIXIT. Daranios (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My point isn’t that it’s incomplete but rather incompletable because there’s roughly [checks notes] seven squillion fictional religions and the number is increasing practically every day. Dronebogus (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are. Trying to list all of them is a common argument for deletion for such lists, especially for fictional elements, based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But that's a problem which has already been fixed, and not at all what this list tries to do in its current from. Rather, it tries to list only more or less notable (in the Wikipedia sense) fictional religions, indeed in parallel to Category:Fictional religions. And there are only are managable number of those, are there not? Daranios (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but most fictional religions are not notable. There are so few that are that narrowing it down to them would essentially result in a near-empty list. Dronebogus (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, currently I am counting 23 entries. I don't think there's guidance for a fixed minimum number, but I've seen ten mentioned as an opinion. I think all 23 make sense for navigational purposes (or at least 22 + 1 for WP:MERGEREASON no. 3.), but of those I am counting ten stand-alone articles. Probably a few more are missing, like Guardians of the Whills and Silence (Doctor Who) from Category:Fictional religions, possibly more. And because for fictional religions "the number is increasing practically every day", and more scholarship on fiction is done, the number of notable ones is also likely to increase over time. So I disagree with "would essentially result in a near-empty list". Also, let me ask the most basic question: What would the users of Wikipedia really gain from the list as we have it now not existing? Daranios (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They gain nothing meaningful by this existing in the positive, and the editors have to waste their time keeping it in a presentable state. Dronebogus (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Allright, I believe a navigational overview of the 20+ Wikilinks for our topic here is helpful (in keeping with WP:LISTPURP-NAV) and you don't. I guess we can agree to disagree on that. Daranios (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Daranios. List is incomplete, though, since the criteria are drawn so narrowly as to exclude real-world religions which were alleged to have been started as a bet between science fiction authors. Jclemens (talk) 03:55, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I understood that reference Dronebogus (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol. jp×g 22:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. It's very barebones, it needs citations, but the topic of fictional religions is a notable one. Let's not confuse articles needing improvement with articles that violate policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability applies to the topic, not to the current state of an article. "Category-as-a-list" is not a problem, a great many lists are rightly constructed in this way as these are complementary means of navigation and both valid. There is no doubt that many of the items can readily be reliably cited, so this is an obvious and immediate keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it meets WP:LISTN; what has been said above seems correct to me, repeated claims from the nominator aside. A list does not have to be good to be notable, and it's obvious that the subject of fictional religions is the latter. jp×g 22:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Could use some work but it's a notable topic as someone else mentioned.
 * WuTang94 (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2023 (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.