Deletion of List of FRSs with public religious stances

Comment: per nom and xftr as |OR synthesis, with no useful purpose other than trying to accumulate info for to support some partisan point.  ''If'' this information was thought to serve a purpose, then to avoid being misleading it would need to be more discursive and nuanced, to distinguish between such variants as someone who says that he attends a Catholic church every christmas and Easter, someone who is an actively proselytising evangelical, and to allow for adequate discussion of people who change their religious stance.The footnote in the article also says bizarrely that the article "is restricted to living FRSs because you cannot reliably determine the religious stance of a person who had died!", which is  such a serious misunderstanding of  that the reliability of the whole article has to be rejected
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: Seems all roads lead to NBeale, I came here from Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#Clarify NOR, where this is rightfully discussed as a textbook example of .That this article needs a footnote telling editors to be careful is also a good sign this is a bad idea
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNT)

Comment: The notion ''that this information is important'' to be presented ''in this manner'' is original synthesis, violation of . The list appears to be a violation of  as well, as the author points out the purpose of the list is "dispelling popular misconceptions".http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_FRSs_with_public_religious_stances&diff=117008584&oldid=116993859 NBeale, http://starcourse.blogspot.com/2007/03/amazing-few-days.html you have a blog. Please use it. That's the appropriate outlet for your POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN||WP:POINT)

Comment: I don't think this list is unsalvageably |original research.  If it truly only lists individuals who have made public their religious stance, it is inherently attribut''able''.  As it currently stands, however, it violates  (only one source when dozens of persons are listed).  I was surprised to discover that List of Fellows of the Royal Society is not yet an article.  If it ever becomes one, perhaps religion could be noted there (although there is probably more important information that could be included, such as dates of birth and death, nationality, subject specialisation, year of election as a Fellow, and so on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:BLP)

Comment: per nom.  To address NBeale's points, I will say that this is , a clear synthesis, and while it is obviously ''intended'' to make a point, it is, nevertheless, pointless.  FRS is arbitrary and "religious stances" is vague.  Why not a list of CoE Bishops with "public scientific stances
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as this list can be automatically generated through categories. I am also confident to state that it is also simply created for the purpose of showing the extent of disbelief in FRS. It is thus a |synthesis of information. Why next we'll be AfD'ing a List of FRSs with public sexuality stances as homosexuality is usually targetted along with atheists by the same groups of people
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as initial author). : ''"The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list. Examples would include lists organized chronologically, grouped by theme, or annotated lists."'' Making such a list cannot be considered  - if it were then ''all'' structured lists would be OR.  I have no idea whether there will be more Atheists, Agnostics or Christians on this list - the intention is simply to present the information factually and without POV comment. When the people listed have their own articles which attribute religious positions in the articles (based on reliabile sources) additional refs seem superfluous, but can be provided if necessary. The fact that list A is not list B or C, or the possibility that people reading this list might draw conclusions which certain editors don't like, are not valid reasons for detetion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:OR)

Comment: as |OR by synthesis. And a can of worms: are we to have lists or categories for every pairwise combination of characteristics? List of popes by whether they are left-handed, right-handed, or ambidextrous? List of cheeses by color? Ok, maybe that's a strawman, but there needs to be some argument why this particular combination of categories is both notable and sourcable. And by sourcable, I mean a |reliable source for the notability of the subject of the list, not so much individual sources for the individual list members
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:RS)

Comment: per nom. |OR minefield and |POV-pushing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:POV)