Deletion of List of scandals involving American evangelical Christians

Comment: and '''restore global scope'''. No policy-based reason given for deletion, which boils down to . The topic is notable and widely treated as such in reliable secondary sources. Identification as an evangelical is trivially easy to determine, as is the status of an event as a scandal. There is no policy basis for requiring events in a list to be related except in terms of the list criteria. That the scandals occured mainly in the United States is no reason to restrict the list exclusively to the United States. The list complies with all of our policy requirements for list articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: whilst we should |assume good faith on the part of the nominator, I do wish to raise some background in the interests of transparency. The article previously had a worldwide scope but in March 2013 the nominator renamed it and reduced the scope to america-only (diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_scandals_involving_American_evangelical_Christians&diff=543814910&oldid=543668410). There was no prior attempt to obtain consensus. I was on a wikibreak at this time and didn't notice the change (I would have objected if I was around). I queried this yesterday with the nominator and respectfully suggested that his change didn't improve wikipedia. I didn't find his answers convincing - his main concern could have been fixed with a simple edit that preserved the worldwide scope. This morning I returned the article to its former name and added back the non-US entries. The nominator promptly reverted everything I did. Forgive me for saying this, it's not meant to be a personal attack, but the pattern of the nominator's behaviour suggests they may be seeking to suppress material that is critical of evangelical christians, particularly in the UK. My reasoning for this allegation is that their change to the article's scope had the effect of removing UK scandals. Also, from the times the nominator is active, I would guess that they are in the UK. They may be worried that UK scandals will be included once again if they lose the consensus over the reduced scope of the article, which was their change. Hence they have responded with this AfD. My apologies once again for raising this, but it is a possible wp:coi|conflict of interest. I will declare a personal interest in that I recently re-created Tony Anthony (evangelist), a UK evangelical who has recently been the subject of a scandal, and I was wanting to include him in this summary article. However, even in the absence of this, I would still have challenged the nominator's changes to the article once I became aware of them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF)

Comment: WP:OR, strong possibility of current/future  violations, and failing CAT explicitly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLPCAT)

Comment: the list does not assert notability of the set.  demands that the list topic "has been discussed ''as a group or set'' by independent reliable sources". While individual scandals and "recent scandals" have been covered heavily, I can't find any significant discussion of the topic of American Evangelical scandals as a group in reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN)

Comment: I haven't looked into every article on the list to see what these "scandals" are all about, but I assume most of them are are not notable enough for their own articles, and it's not encyclopedic to list people based on minor scandals or simply personal problems.  should be interpreted stictly when it involves negative things about living persons, due to the general BLP principle of not giving undue weight to controversies etc. Also,  says "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation" and I think this should be applied to lists, as well.  Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:BLPCAT)

Comment: IMO this looks more like a response to Catholic clergy scandals than an effort by the anti-religious faction. (And I really have to add that the fact that people are sinners is more often cited as a reason for religion, not against it.)  Having said all that an encyclopedia is a place for plainly presented facts.  Putting a lot of instances together to make a point (whatever point was intended here) falls under the category of original research, opinion, essay -- which are all discouraged by . I was also surprized to see that some people are included who are not even clergy.  I don't think Richard Nixon would be included in a "List of Quaker scandals
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: What if I believed in the Napolean complex theory and I started an article on Scandals involving shorter than average men?  I think that would be obviously . It's the same here.  The list is only here because (IMO) people tend to think religion and scandal-free behavior is or should be related
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: To repeat what other editors have said, what is a 'scandal', and what is an 'evangelical Christian'? Quite frankly any negative categorization list is a clear delete to me. This landed on /N yesterday regarding the addition of negative information about a female pastor (or whatever they're called) that while salacious (I'm sure) could hardly have been construed as a scandal. Or could it? It depends on one's point of view, I suppose. That's the problem - the criteria is simply too subjective and a violation of CAT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLPCAT)