This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No consensus to delete. VfD notice removed. Deletion debate is archived below. Cecropia 01:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A list of non-famous professors from a college in Georgia, USA. Guanaco 02:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let's not encourage somebody to write an article about all of those people who are linked to on this page. Rick K 03:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Tylor and Max Müller are scholars of religion. The latter is the very founder!
--Yanemiro 11:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This list has several (fixable) problems. First, it does not distinguish between classic figures (e.g., Weber, Durkheim, Frazer, Freud, van Gennep, Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard) and contemporary scholars. Second, it is titled "religious studies scholars," but many of the people listed are not in that specific discipline (e.g., anthropologists Boyer and Hurston; sociologists Berger and Stark). It should perhaps be re-titled "List of scholars of religion." Third, other appropriate people with existing articles on wikipedia are not included (e.g., Bron Taylor, Jan Assman, Manuel A. Vásquez, Russell T. McCutcheon, Robert A. Orsi). (I ran across a wikipedia page of scholars or new religious movement, which I can no longer find [a separate problem] and everyone on that much longer list qualifies.) Fourth, as always, people are missing who more important than many who are included (e.g., Jane Ellen Harrison, Karl Marx, Tylor and Múller as noted above; Hans G. Kippenberg, Gustavo Benavides, Michel Despland, Thomas Tweed). On the one hand, that is just the usual invitation for further articles. On the other hand, this list is particularly problematic in that regard. 68.146.91.93 ( talk) 13:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I second Yanemiro's observations. A list of scholars of Reliigon is an odd category - sending people to links of scholarly organizations or else featuring significant theorists would be better.
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
No consensus to delete. VfD notice removed. Deletion debate is archived below. Cecropia 01:25, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)
A list of non-famous professors from a college in Georgia, USA. Guanaco 02:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Let's not encourage somebody to write an article about all of those people who are linked to on this page. Rick K 03:14, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Tylor and Max Müller are scholars of religion. The latter is the very founder!
--Yanemiro 11:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This list has several (fixable) problems. First, it does not distinguish between classic figures (e.g., Weber, Durkheim, Frazer, Freud, van Gennep, Malinowski, Evans-Pritchard) and contemporary scholars. Second, it is titled "religious studies scholars," but many of the people listed are not in that specific discipline (e.g., anthropologists Boyer and Hurston; sociologists Berger and Stark). It should perhaps be re-titled "List of scholars of religion." Third, other appropriate people with existing articles on wikipedia are not included (e.g., Bron Taylor, Jan Assman, Manuel A. Vásquez, Russell T. McCutcheon, Robert A. Orsi). (I ran across a wikipedia page of scholars or new religious movement, which I can no longer find [a separate problem] and everyone on that much longer list qualifies.) Fourth, as always, people are missing who more important than many who are included (e.g., Jane Ellen Harrison, Karl Marx, Tylor and Múller as noted above; Hans G. Kippenberg, Gustavo Benavides, Michel Despland, Thomas Tweed). On the one hand, that is just the usual invitation for further articles. On the other hand, this list is particularly problematic in that regard. 68.146.91.93 ( talk) 13:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I second Yanemiro's observations. A list of scholars of Reliigon is an odd category - sending people to links of scholarly organizations or else featuring significant theorists would be better.