Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former Muslims


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

List of former Muslims

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not see the encyclopedic value of classifying people according to religion DimaG (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  — KuyaBriBri Talk 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do. On what particular grounds are you proposing deletion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I42 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. One of the main purposes of lists, as outlined at WP:LIST, is to provide valuable sources of information. This article does so, as it documents important incidents in the lives of notable people, according to a specific and discriminate set of criteria. Also, a note: this article was previously nominated for deletion twice, as can be seen here and here.--Unscented (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A sterling example of WP:LIST coupled with WP:RS. The nominator has not provided a valid reason to encourage deletion. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Changing one's religion is highly relevant to a person's views on the world and as a result also relevant to their achievements especially for people doing journalistic writing or political work. (Why did the nominator single out the list of former muslims? We have lists like this for all major religions according to the see also section)- Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This one is approaching a snowball. I've never known an encyclopedia that avoided mention of religion.  Mandsford (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep no good reason to delete given, and no reason for specifying only this one of many such articles for deletion. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - well-sourced, discriminate, informative. - Biruitorul Talk 18:27, 9 April 2009 (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.