Category talk:American Christians
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This category was nominated for deletion, renaming, or merging with another category on 2007 March 30. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. |
| Category | This article has been rated as cat-class on the quality scale. |
| Category | This page is a Category and does not require a rating on the quality scale. |
[edit] What are the criteria for inclusion in this category?
What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? In the US, a person must claim to be a Christian or Jew for any hope of social advancement, save academia, and to achieve elective office.--Son of Somebody 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] What is the point of this category?
Aren't 80-90% of Americans (historically and currently) Christians? Almost any American could be on this list. The subcategories (American Roman Catholics, or for that matter Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, etc.) seem more useful. TK421 15:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its actually more like 75%, but I agree. This category is not useful. Titanium Dragon 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- SHould this go to CfD then? It's too large, too generic. If it were something like 'Christian Actors' and referred to those who make note of their religion in their work and interviews, then we could put Kirk Cameron, some of te 7th Heaven folks, that guy from grey's anatomy, and so on in, and it might be legit. ThuranX 04:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- This shouldn't go to CfD, it was there very recently and it was decided to keep this category. Mathmo Talk 04:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- About 90% of these people are Atheists who call themselves Christians so they can be on this list. Can someone prove me wrong?--Son of Somebody 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- About 99% of these people, even if they have heard of Wikipedia, are not aware that this category exists, far less that they are on it. Your assertion seems rather odd. --Orange Mike 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- My assertion was nearly as serious as this category's context. My apology for the facetious entry.--74.171.63.241 19:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (That's me, new address)--Son of Somebody 19:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- About 99% of these people, even if they have heard of Wikipedia, are not aware that this category exists, far less that they are on it. Your assertion seems rather odd. --Orange Mike 18:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- About 90% of these people are Atheists who call themselves Christians so they can be on this list. Can someone prove me wrong?--Son of Somebody 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- This shouldn't go to CfD, it was there very recently and it was decided to keep this category. Mathmo Talk 04:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- SHould this go to CfD then? It's too large, too generic. If it were something like 'Christian Actors' and referred to those who make note of their religion in their work and interviews, then we could put Kirk Cameron, some of te 7th Heaven folks, that guy from grey's anatomy, and so on in, and it might be legit. ThuranX 04:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
This category has the potential of becoming massive - another potentially huge category Category:American_women has a solution, namely limiting the broad category to subcategory groups. This category should therefore not hold articles on individuals. Thoughts? Sfacets 22:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's possible that might help matters, but I doubt it, because then you'll end up with subcategories like American Christian bisexual Republican actresses. That will go on a while until it becomes just too much, and then someone will suggest deleting all the subcategories and just having Category:American_Christians. My two cents is that the category should be deleted. Ward3001 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with deletion, if nothing else can be worked out. I don't see the usefulness of having such a broad category. Perhaps another cfd to gather community input about my proposition above, or to well and truly delete this category should be started - it has been almost a year since the last one. Sfacets 22:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
