Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claims to be the fastest-growing religion

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 no consensus. There is narrowly no consensus for deletion. Most participants agree that the article is of poor quality and should, if at all, exist under a title such as Growth of religion. However, many "delete" opinions focus on issues that are fixable by editing or other actions other than deletion, such as editor misconduct. That's why I assign less weight to them and find that we don't have consensus to delete yet. If the article is not improved, a second deletion nomination might be successful.  Sandstein  11:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be the fastest-growing religion

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-encyclopaedic topic: we don't have "Claims to be ..." or "Claims to have ..." articles. Non-notable topic: 0 hits on JSTOR; 12 hits on Google books. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click the link, count the books. How many do you see? Perhaps you forgot to exclude all the "books" that are in fact just rehashes of the Wikipedia article? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This and this discount your assertions. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename growth of religion. There is an encyclopedic article here, although there needs to be some work to get it into shape, particularly a full rewrite of the intro. This is part of the normal editing process, however. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename, rework per above to remove the encyclopedia-inappropriate "claims"-type content. Ansh666 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as
    talk) 20:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the content should be based on measurable change in independently conducted surveys of self-identification among the general public, not any claims made from within a particular religious complex. Also if kept, the title should reflect mention of religions mathematically demonstrated to be declining (which is equally noteworthy) so the word "growth" might not be adequate. ―cobaltcigs 15:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename(?) A really ignorant suggestion. Obviously the title is there to bring some sort of clarity to a very subjective and often delicate entry. But it would be more encyclopedic to remove that part. It could possible be merged with "Religion" itself as a subsection of growth while also including a subsection on historic growth. 37.123.149.65 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this article is a MESS, some religious editors tried to promote their religion priority (Islam is the most witnessed example). Some editors don't respect each other, they delete all negative point of views toward their religion and keep positive (sometimes it's very biased) information. Angelo De La Paz (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't an excuse for deletion. Biased issues can be discussed on talk page. Although I agree that in the past certain editors did not wish to engage in neutrality. But they have mostly been dealt with. NarSakSasLee (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These concerns don't address the question of whether this is an encyclopedic topic. Everyone agrees the article has major issues, but if we delete it now it will almost certainly reappear again under a different title.
WP:TNT and renaming are more productive solutions than deletion. There are academic published sources, such as the WRD and WCD, that provide information on average annual growth and absolute annual growth. (I don't know whether these databases also list conversion estimates.) If other editors know of databases that provide current and projected religious statistics, we should include those as well. It seems clear to me the topic is encyclopedic and could be adequately referenced. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete Agreed with GabrielF, this whole article is really based on propaganda, especially on the Islam, and also others. It's not presenting the actual value, and if we start writing that how many have become apostate from the religion it wouldn't be possible to get agreement of all active editors, because much of these articles are edited by the supporter of these propaganda. The predictions are also very irrelevant that have been given inside this page. Better to get rid of it. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, but revert back to earlier version Although this article is constantly edited, and even when it is in a poor shape, it is much better for the general reader than not having anything. At least it counters the "Islam is the fastest growing religion"
    Guinness book of records
    or copied out. There are some verifiable claims, such as Australian Census and ARIS data that give some insights.
  • Also, this article is much worse than it was when first written. It seems to have degenerated from what was quite a good article in 2009 into a list of competitive facts. Look at some earlier revisions for better versions of this article. Somebody could take this one [3] and revise it adding any relevant / better facts from the present article and we'd have something pretty good. (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly an encyclopedic topic. The article needs to be reworked and probably renamed per above.
    WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns are unfounded. There are clearly reliable published sources in the article, such as the World Religion Database and the Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. The WRD, in particular, provides information on current and projected average annual growth rates and absolute growth rates. --Life is like a box of chocolates (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per GabrielF. We need some
    WP:TNT, but I won't be particularly upset if no one builds it again. --BDD (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion&oldid=1142180821"