Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:List of religions and deities
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Graestan(Talk) 22:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
List of religions and deities (talk - history - links - logs)
Seems like there's already two categories, both linked in the article. Simply subdivide the categories by type and/or locale, and blammo, redundant list.
Delete
- --Goodwood
(Alliance Intelligence) 07:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC) - I've got to say, I don't see anything in the list that makes it more useful in its current form than categories would be. I seem to be in the minority, but I just don't see it. DolukTalk 03:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep
- I'm gonna go with keep, because it's more organised. We only have a category on Vong and Ewok dieties, but not the other subjects. I don't think we have one on holy texts either. You make them, and I'll be happy to kill. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- We actually do, it's called Category:Religious codes and documents. And it's a simple thing to make more categories.--Goodwood (Alliance Intelligence) 07:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- We actually do, it's called Category:Religious codes and documents. And it's a simple thing to make more categories.--Goodwood
- Keep. At least it looks loosely organized compared to other stupid lists and may be useful to somebody. Mauser 08:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Per Mauser. I have personally found it useful, in fact. Plus, this isn't gonna be as big of a fanon magnet as some of our other lists. Gonk (Gonk!) 17:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I sense something wants to make this list redundant to merit its deletion. If people still find it useful, it is not redundant. -- Riffsyphon1024 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- This is actually a useful list. Chack Jadson (Talk) 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep; it is already useful as a list, even if it could be improved as an article.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 11:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments
- It wouldn't kill me to keep this, but keeping the information shouldn't stop this page from being formatted into an actual article, even if the "listy" presentation remains for the time being. Toprawa and Ralltiir 20:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)