Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words to denote religious opponents


 * 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 Delete --Ton e  07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

List of words to denote religious opponents
This is a list of related words, and, per common practice and WP:WINAD, it has been transwikied to wikt:Appendix:Words for religious opponents. This list has no encyclopedic potential. It is therefore ready to be deleted. (For more information about this practice, please see the outcome of Deletion policy/Lists of words, which was that: "Article about "Words of " may be okay. "List of words of " to Wiktionary.") Dmcdevit·t 20:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment It is very strange for me to point people from chrictian culture (or even possibly christians) to sources that clearly see the encyclopedic nature of this terminology/glossary. For starters I suggest you to look into the"Disparity of Worship" article from Catholic Encyclopedia. I started this article execting it attracts some attention and be expanded. Therefor I myslef did not call it "list of..." But evidently in wikipedia the major interest is sexual slang and barioous bilateral political bickering.
 * Delete Can hardly be any useful. Furthermore, looks like an inaccurate original research ("infidel" isn't used just for those who aren't Christians).-- Hús  ö  nd  02:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is inaccurate, please write comments. Not everything in wikipedia is accurate. Mukadderat 00:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and it's our job to transform inaccuracies into verifiable content. I see that you corrected the statement "infidels are non-Christians", but still the article is vague and lacking sources. The information contained therein seems more suitable for Wiktionary.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Husond. Danny Lilithborne 09:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination.Gobawoo 16:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Mildly interesting to read, but "mildly interesting" doesn't equate to "keep". EVula 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Religion is an impoertant phenomenon. Of course this list is less interesting for an average internet kid than List of sexual slurs, which survived I don't know how many votes for deletion. But this list is useful and has encyclopedic potential. Colleague Dmcevit acted hypocritically. First he moved the article under the name "list of..." and then suggested for deletion. THe article is not a simple alphabetial list; it classifies terms in certain categories. Potentially elements may be commented, i.e., made in a kind of glossary. It is confusing to understand these words in different cultures, and the topic has rights to exist. Mukadderat 00:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You haven't addressed the reson for deletion. Is it not a list of words, with no potential to become more than that? "Useful" does not "equal" (That is quite an insult to all of our other non-encyclopedia sister-projects, Wiktionary included.) Dmcdevit·t 00:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason for deletion I see is the opinion "has nio encyclopedic pootential" I addressed it by equalliy strong opinion "does have potential". As for insult, funny. I am not saying to delete them from wiktionary. Wiktionary may benefir for some structuring/classification as well. (Although I must note that unlike wikipedia, wiktionary is doomed to be dubious, because (a) it does not provide sources for word defitinions and (b) it seeems has way less eyes. But this is a separate story.) Mukadderat 00:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, why? The contention is that this is not encyclopedic because it is only a list of words and/or definitions (and not about a class of words), and is thus only appropriate for a dictionary. Could you please address this concern? Dmcdevit·t 01:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

For example, an average person does not really see much difference between terms "heretic/schismatic/infidel/apostate". This article could have been a comparison of attitudes.

It would also be interesting to read why some dictionaries put the words "sectarian" and "true believer" as synonyms. In summary, this nomination clearly shows misunderstanding and neglect of the topic, but I am unfortunately not an expert in theological linguistics, and I canot say more. If no one else steps in to defend the topic, I will not loose my sleep. Thank you for attention. Mukadderat 00:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have articles on all these terms. This seems a useful way of getting people to those articles. Could certainly be expanded with a longer introduction and more annotation. --JJay 02:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and Dmcdevit·t's reply to a keep vote. No sources or context to top it off.Arbusto 20:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a glossary, and it would be hard to keep NPOV with the different connotations. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 27 October 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.