This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundant with categories. If something like this is to exist at all, it should be like
Category:Criminals by nationality. There is nothing principally wrong with organizing criminals by their religion, despite the obvious potential for abusive and frivolous entries, but the added value seems too questionable to warrant it. On the positive side of the relevance scale, you could consider a
list of criminals subject to parental abuse. On the negative side, consider
list of Catholic investment bankers. This list does not mention how their religion was relevant to the crimes committed by the people on it, because it usually simply wasn't. Weighing costs and benefits, I'd say delete it.
JRM ·
Talk 09:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
reply
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC) reply
Redundant with categories. If something like this is to exist at all, it should be like
Category:Criminals by nationality. There is nothing principally wrong with organizing criminals by their religion, despite the obvious potential for abusive and frivolous entries, but the added value seems too questionable to warrant it. On the positive side of the relevance scale, you could consider a
list of criminals subject to parental abuse. On the negative side, consider
list of Catholic investment bankers. This list does not mention how their religion was relevant to the crimes committed by the people on it, because it usually simply wasn't. Weighing costs and benefits, I'd say delete it.
JRM ·
Talk 09:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
reply