Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious information by country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The delete arguments are basically copyright, but this source is public domain-USGOV. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religious information by country

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is essentially a copy-paste of all the material from the Religion section for each country in the CIA World Factbook, supplemented with data from Pew. See Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT, Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hadn't noticed the edit summary that notes the material already existed at the end of Religions by country and was being split out from there. I'd have made the same argument in favor of removing that section from Religions by country if I'd known about it, but your mileage may vary. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of course the information is notable and should be on WP. However it is just as easy to go directly to a country's article, which should have a religion section, as it is to find the country on an alphabetical list of all 200 or so countries in the world. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find country articles which don't have a religion section. See Andorra for example.

It would be just as easy to add a religion section there as to add an Andorra section to this article.Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information is evidently notable as it states its sources quite clearly. There is considerable scope for presenting the information in a more structured way. For example, the major world religions might form separate columns so that you would have countries as one axis and religions as the other. Per our editing policy, we should not delete this when there are more constructive options available. Warden (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll point out that the issues I raised in initiating this discussion involved neither notability nor the form of presentation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Guidelines in Wikipedia:NOFULLTEXT and Wikipedia:NOTREPOSITORY have a purpose to exclude whole primary documents from Wikipedia. Religious information by country -article only has compiled together interesting and mainly statistical parts from three separate sources. It gives an opportunity to compare often conflicting information. Ximfel1 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until problems are fixed. If you compare what it says in column four of Religious information by country with the US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report for 2012 you find that it is word for word the same. It is just a wholesale cut and paste. I checked this for the bit on Afghanistan. I assume it is the same for other entries. This is a breach of Wikipedia policy. However, it is permitted by the US Department of State.[1] At the very least, all the quotations should be put in inverted commas, and given individual citations. I think that considerably more should be done than this.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. A copy-paste article. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How many different ways can statistical information be presented? Pew Forum's information is entirely type of Population - Religion A - % - Religion B - % etc. The World Factbook's information is almost all the same type. There isn't much possibilities to write that in your own words. There is much more explaining material in International Religious Freedom Report for 2012 which could be reformulated, but how meaningful it is when the purpose is to represent religious information from different sources for comparison. Ximfel1 (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it needs extensive paring-down or risks destruction. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely repackages information from governmental and non-profit websites. WP:NOTREPOSITORY#3 applies.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for copyright and copy-paste reasons and because this information should be written in each country article anyway, just like Kitfoxxe says. Arms Jones (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Copyright is not a problem for material from the CIA World Factbook, which is in the public domain. This is generally true of U.S. government publications, and in this case spelled out at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/contributor_copyright.html. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per copyright issues. Not really anything to salvage. Userfying does not solve the copyright issue - it is no less a copyright violation in userspace. Neljack (talk) 04:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Copyright announcements in pages [2], [3] and [4] make it clear that there hasn't been any copyright violations. Copy-paste argument for public statistical information from different sources isn't valid either. Furthermore whole primary documents haven't been used. Ximfel1 (talk) 07:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No copyright problems, well-sourced, and this is the kind of overview that encyclopedias frequently offer. Nyttend (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.