Category talk:American Christians

This category was nominated for deletion on 30 March 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This category was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2018. The result of the discussion was keep.

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles

United States

This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Its actually more like 75%, but I agree. This category is not useful. Titanium Dragon 05:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is truly a project by people with too much time on their hands. Which archangel here who is delegated to go around separating the "wheat from the chaff"? Assuming all the other objections (and there are many) are resolved in its favor, my question would be: Whom do you suppose will use this list? Is there really someone out there who might say, I want to read an article about a random American Christian, I wish there was an encyclopedia that had a list that I could pick from? Yet people evidently spend their time jumping from article to article to tag with this category. When you get done with that maybe you can move to "Category: Mandarin speakers in China." Because, after all, there are no articles that need work on. AnthroMimus (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rife with POV selectivity

Another reason this category should be killed outright is that it is rife with selectivity. For example, Watergate Felon Charles Colson (later radio "evangelist") is not included. Nor is the founder of the reborn Ku Klux Klan William Joseph Simmons, who was a teacher in a Methodist Episcopal Church. Nor any of the priests involved in the Church pedophilia scandal (including the bishops and cardinals who hushed it up). Were these people not Christians? Or does this list only include "good" Christians? And who decides? AnthroMimus (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]