Points of interest related to Religion on Wikipedia:
Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style

Deletion SortingProject (talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts .mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Religion. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add ((Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName)) to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding ((subst:delsort|Religion|~~~~)) to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Religion.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Religion[edit]

Proposed 2024 red heifer sacrifice

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

Page is populated by mostly inaccurate or fallacious content from non-RS. Does not meet notability on its own. Valid items are best preserved for appropriate section on Red Heifer main article. Mistamystery (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sarah Pulliam Bailey

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

A search provides no evidence of notability, under WP:NJOURNALIST or any other notability criterion. WP:RS and WP:BEFORE show extensive published material by the subject in RS but virtually no RS biographical coverage about the subject. Also no evidence of significant awards that themselves have notability per WP:ANYBIO. No available evidence of notability under WP:JOURNALIST. Being related to notable family members is not itself notable (WP:BLPFAMILY) nor is having interviewed notable people.--Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Religion, Christianity, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajdah Places in Quran

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

Cannot find actual sources that state "Sajdah Places in Quran" and also per WP:NOTGUIDE. Also I know AFDNOTCLEANUP but this is written religiously. 🍪 CookieMonster 00:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Sujud Tilawa seems an obvious solution, given that the opening words are "Sajda in Quran, also known as Sujud at-Tilawah" (with a piped link). Any encyclopedic content here that can be sourced can be added to that page. UrielAcosta (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sujud Tilawa. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amaron

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

Not notable. A minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we have decided that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day does not apply to Mormonism, chipping away at little bits of Mormonism is a bit pointless. Here are some references that I found using Google Books which the nominator ought to have found while doing WP:BEFORE: Reference 1, Reference 2, Reference 3. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete As the above users sources demonstrate, this person is only mentioned in-universe, such as the devotionals linked The Trash Compactor (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE — Maile (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemish

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

This is a very minor figure in the book of mormon. There are no in depth reliable sources about this topic - it isn't notable Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This individual is mentioned in two verses of the Book of Mormon, and there are not even extensive LDS sources about him (which couldn't even be used to establish notability). Rollidan (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abinadom

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

Minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources to establish their notability. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korihor

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

Not notable. Outside of being a named character in the book of mormon, there doesn't seem to be any independent reliable sources interested in him Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoram

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

Only primary sources. Looks like a minor character who had a page created for completion purposes. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is accurate, what about the sources listed in the further reading section? (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: from what I can see those are either non-independent or have passing mentions of the subject(s?) but no significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent sources of either the name Zoram or any of the three Book of Mormon figures so named. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreating as a DAB page for articles like Zoram Nationalist Party and Zoram People's Movement as well as First Nephi. This article is three Zorams in a trenchcoat. Two of the Zorams are answers to Sunday school trivia questions. They're only here to fill out the trenchcoat, and aren't actually relevant to the main Zoram topic. There could be an argument that the main Zoram is notable under GNG, but thanks to the rest of the notability guideline after the first part, we don't even have to have that argument. Listen: More or less the same Zoram content already exists in First Nephi. WP:NOPAGE, which is part of the notability guideline, suggests that when we have a choice like this we should consider presenting information to readers in broader context where possible, and WP:NNC, which is also part of the notability guideline, teaches us that we need not argue about the notability of contents within an article. So this is a rare occasion where we can productively skip the traditional GNG/do-sources-contribute-to-notability headbutting, because the best outcome here for readers is to ditch the three Zorams in a trenchcoat and use any appropriate sources to improve already existing content about the main Zoram elsewhere in the encyclopedia, where it is already presented in a broader context. Optional bonus: we can help our readers and improve Zoram-related navigation with the most likely search term as the title of a DAB page. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship

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

Has had zero secondary sources since creation just under 20 years ago. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Searches bring up nothing for me. Cortador (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A merge or redirect to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations should be considered as an WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and authority

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

This is an essay not an encyclopedia article. None of the sources are about this topic, with each being used to back up a string of arguments used to make this article entirely from wp:or and wp:synth

If any books ABOUT Mormonism and authority come out, such an article should exist then. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. There should be an article on this, but all the content here is SYNTH from primary sourcing or misuse of reliable second sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT: mildly interesting essay as it stands, but not what Wikipedia's for. AryKun (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as it now stands is undeniably an essay that needs to be completely rewritten. I recently acquired several excellent sources on this exact topic, and I will be working on this article as I can in order to improve it, but I do request that is not deleted until such changes are taken into consideration. As the OP hinted at regarding books, these include two books which I have added to the article. Rollidan (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Iyobo

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

Fails GNG and no SIGCOV. Being a head of a church regards a notable one per WP:CLERGY and verifiable by multiple reliable sources. BEFORE found nothing even with different change of related name on google news per WP: BISHOP. It is noteworthy to say: it's neither written as an Encyclopedic material nor a notable reference since it lacks context also to identify WP:N All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Nigeria. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also did not pass WP: NAUTHOR and WP: JOURNALIST. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 04:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJCS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, and Colorado. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This probably should have been bundled with the nomination for parent station KDEO-LD. KJCS's pre-KDEO history was all-Daystar, and its current form has no separate notability from KDEO — which, when there's no notability there, is a problem. (Non-notability isn't automatically handed down like that, much as notability isn't inherited either, but it's not a good sign.) There are lists that this could be redirected to, but for the sake of consistency (given the KDEO deletion) it's probably best to jettison this entirely. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if there is a suitable list as per WCQuidditch's post. Religious related broadcasting stations are more notable when we get info the physical paperwork. After the work that's been put into it, it would be nice to preserve the history. Karl Twist (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are advocating a Redirect or Merge, you need to identify the target article in each AFD you participate in. One link, and an argument, is what is being looked for. Otherwise, it looks like this article will be Deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media in Colorado Springs, Colorado (where it is mentioned as an EWTN station). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in RabbitEars suggests that article is the outdated one, Slgrandson. This was once owned by a Catholic group, but it now is owned by Simchat Torah Beit Midrash and offers channels called Oorah TV, Torah TV, Vida Vision TV, and Grace TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Laban

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

Article recently created by disclosed paid editors from BYU. Despite the extensive references, most scholarship on the Book of Mormon is conducted by Mormons so whether WP:INDY sourcing requirement is met is unclear. For example, Catholicism and Judaism, among others, have produced vast bodies of scholarship on the details of their own religion, but only the clearly notable topics of Catholic canon law or Jewish exegetical literature are summarized here for the non-specialist reader.

While a proposed merge to First Nephi would also have been a reasonable course, I believe a full AfD is more likely to attract more independent comments and form a clearer community consensus. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, and Latter Day Saints. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, there are some questionable sources. Irreantum is the publication for the Association for Mormon Letters, and it is not peer-reviewed. However, it is a literary journal, and it is used as a source just in the "Literary and artistic representations" section. That seems like an appropriate use of the source--for the existence of literature about the killing of Laban. Similarly, seeing The Ensign as a source gives me pause, but the text of the Wikipedia article attributes the author as an LDS apostle in-text. Full disclosure: My friend and expert in Book of Mormon studies created this page at my encouragement (so, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to vote in this discussion; if that's the case, consider this a comment). I would like to hear what other Wikipedians think! We need to develop more consensus about sources for LDS topics. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is part of a broader discussion within the LDS wikispace pertaining to sources, contributions by individual editors, etc. As it stands, the article appears to have the following sources:
- #1 through #7 - referencing the BOM directly. These are WP:PRIMARY references.
- #8 - summary of the topic in a section of a scholarly book, no connection to the topic.
- #9 - peer-reviewed article on the topic from an academic journal published by University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute at BYU. Part of the broader sourcing discussion.
- #10 - article on the subject from an independent journal in the space. No other concerns.
- #11 -article that references the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
- #12 - book referencing the subject as a part of broader claims. No other concerns.
- #13 - book of mormon textbook published by the LDS Church. This is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source.
- #14 - church magazine article published by the LDS Church. Similarly not independent.
- #15 - book published by the Maxwell Institute. Part of the broader discussion.
- #16 - church magazine article, see #14
- #17 - same publication as #9
- #18 through #22 - references to the subject published in the Irreantum newsletter published by the Association of Mormon Letters. Part of the broader discussion, exact status still in debate.
- #23 - BYU address given by LDS apostle. Not independent.
- #24 - article referring to the subject from an independent journal. No other concerns.

In summary, this article has references that fall into three categories - primary sources and those closely associated with the LDS church, references that have some connection with the LDS community and are part of a broader discussion in regards to their position on Wikipedia, and independent sources that have no connection to the LDS church outside of this topic. In my view, there is a lot of work to be done to make sure that references and articles are used and written in a WP:NPOV and independent manner. However, references such as #10, 11, 12, and #24 are indicative of this part of the Book of Mormon being a scholarly important part of the broader narrative. These are examples of various authors using the Book of Mormon narrative as a primary source to help draw conclusions related to their various secondary conclusions, allowing Wikipedia to draw tertiary summaries from these articles. Could this article use additional rewrite? Absolutely. But it does not need to be deleted, at least as far as these sources are concerned. Rollidan (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is kept, it should be subject to heavy cleanup tags and extensive trimming. Lots of issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY, and by extension, WP:NPOV. On the other hand, the idea of the Killing of Laban providing justification for later Blood Atonement is interesting, could counterbalance the prevailing pro-LDS POV, and could provide justification for the notability of the article as a whole. Those thoughts should remain and perhaps even be expanded if possible. Trevdna (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samte Khoda

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

Non-notable, I do not find WP:SIGCOV demonstrating that it is a notable TV show. Created by user to build credibility for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Najmeddin Shariati Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 14:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Iran. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 14:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear User4edits

This article is significant because it is about one of the most popular television programs of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Organization, which has been running since 2009.

Please remove it from the removal list

Thanks

Please see this article (IRIB TV3) for verification

The name of the TV show Samte Khoda is mentioned in it M.sharaki (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has the necessary infrastructure, including a complete biography of the Samte Khoda program with authentic and documented references and the availability of the article in Persian language. M.sharaki (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — M.sharaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep In my opinion, it is an article that convinces people and has the protocols of Wikipedia.Yahosein525 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Yahosein525 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with what nom said.Tehonk (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has the necessary infrastructure, including a complete biography of the God side program with authentic and documented references and the availability of the article in Persian language.M.sharaki (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: M.sharaki (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
You may only !vote once. Please strike through one of your keeps since they are duplicates. Star Mississippi 22:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI agree with keeping this article. ThanksHadimirjafari (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Hadimirjafari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Nazareth

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

Poor sourcing on the page, little else found which counts towards the inclusion criteria on en.wiki

A redirect seems unhelpful given there are other communities with similar/identical names so it would require a move first. Nothing much to merge to Anglican Church in Japan JMWt (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Japan. JMWt (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful if I added an external link to the Order's website, and more content? fishhead64 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Skynxnex (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep It's hard to wade through all the false hits on the place of Jesus' birth, but I found at least some material from The Living Church. The issue appears to be that it's stubby. I don't know whether we have any guidelines on religious orders. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion. According to the source listed in the article, there were only three members left, with the majority having passed away in recent years. According to the website of the Anglican Church in Japan via Google Translate, the Community was disbanded in April 2023. FYI I think that the Japanese name of the order is "ナザレ修女会" and the building is "エピファニー館". Matt's talk 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pelloe

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

Little on the page to suggest this cleric meets the inclusion standards. Middle ranking Anglican clerics do not have assumed notability JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and England. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do the sources in the article--mostly offline--say about him? It'd be premature to say that this should be deleted when we have sources that aren't obviously improper: Someone added them to the article at some point. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two are notifications of appointment, one is in a directory of all clergy. The only source which could count towards notability is presence in Who Was Who. JMWt (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can find significant coverage of this cleric in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions[edit]

Religion Templates[edit]

Atheism[edit]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Buddhism[edit]

Unitarian Universalist Buddhist Fellowship

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

Has had zero secondary sources since creation just under 20 years ago. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Searches bring up nothing for me. Cortador (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A merge or redirect to Unitarian_Universalism#Organizations should be considered as an WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

Christianity[edit]

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sarah Pulliam Bailey

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Religion, Christianity, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPFW-LD

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

Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 23:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: the nom may have failed to provide any explanation, but this DTV America/HC2/Innovate station — only marginally older than the stations actually started by the company — has the usual lack of significant coverage (or prospect of any) to meet the GNG. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mvcg66b3r: It would help if you provided a rationale for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLOG (FM)

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

Zero secondary sources, sourced only to government databases. Fails WP:GNG. Defunct radio station licensed to community of less than 300 people. AusLondonder (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Companies, and Pennsylvania. AusLondonder (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As I mentioned in my seconding of the PROD (someone else contested it), this was evidently the nominal primary station for a national, albeit modest, network of low-power translator stations (it used to have more than the three still listed), but there probably was never any sufficient coverage of even that for our purposes. A remnant of the looser "standards" of 2008 where entirely-database-based articles could slip under the radar and not get removed quickly as might happen today. (The contesting was apparently related to a redirect from WKIH, a co-owned station in Georgia, but as that station is not mentioned in this article I've retargeted WKIH to a list that does mention that particular station.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WZXX There are at least four separate articles counting this one about stations owned by Radio by Grace which all seem to have the same program schedule but a different 'source' for programming, including KRBG and KBZD, and whose only main difference seems to be HD Radio subchannel programming; these could do with being merged into one article, but for this one, it should be briefly mentioned in the article for its former source station. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain any of those articles meet notability requirements. Two of them don't even have any sources other than databases. AusLondonder (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCFC-CA

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is currently completely unsourced and I have been unable to locate any useful secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Total Living Network Network is now regional-cable only and has been for over a decade, and I had considered redirecting long before. Nate • (chatter) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WQFL-CA

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient SIGCOV for an article in Rockford paper. The station operated as "WOCM", a FamilyNet affiliate with some non-FN programming, when it went on in 1992. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amaron

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

Not notable. A minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we have decided that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day does not apply to Mormonism, chipping away at little bits of Mormonism is a bit pointless. Here are some references that I found using Google Books which the nominator ought to have found while doing WP:BEFORE: Reference 1, Reference 2, Reference 3. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:*Delete As the above users sources demonstrate, this person is only mentioned in-universe, such as the devotionals linked The Trash Compactor (talk) 00:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

The Trash Compactor has now been indef blocked as Wikipedia:NOTHERE — Maile (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chemish

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

This is a very minor figure in the book of mormon. There are no in depth reliable sources about this topic - it isn't notable Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This individual is mentioned in two verses of the Book of Mormon, and there are not even extensive LDS sources about him (which couldn't even be used to establish notability). Rollidan (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abinadom

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

Minor character in the book of Mormon with no independent reliable sources to establish their notability. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korihor

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoram

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

Only primary sources. Looks like a minor character who had a page created for completion purposes. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is accurate, what about the sources listed in the further reading section? (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: from what I can see those are either non-independent or have passing mentions of the subject(s?) but no significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent sources of either the name Zoram or any of the three Book of Mormon figures so named. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with no prejudice against recreating as a DAB page for articles like Zoram Nationalist Party and Zoram People's Movement as well as First Nephi. This article is three Zorams in a trenchcoat. Two of the Zorams are answers to Sunday school trivia questions. They're only here to fill out the trenchcoat, and aren't actually relevant to the main Zoram topic. There could be an argument that the main Zoram is notable under GNG, but thanks to the rest of the notability guideline after the first part, we don't even have to have that argument. Listen: More or less the same Zoram content already exists in First Nephi. WP:NOPAGE, which is part of the notability guideline, suggests that when we have a choice like this we should consider presenting information to readers in broader context where possible, and WP:NNC, which is also part of the notability guideline, teaches us that we need not argue about the notability of contents within an article. So this is a rare occasion where we can productively skip the traditional GNG/do-sources-contribute-to-notability headbutting, because the best outcome here for readers is to ditch the three Zorams in a trenchcoat and use any appropriate sources to improve already existing content about the main Zoram elsewhere in the encyclopedia, where it is already presented in a broader context. Optional bonus: we can help our readers and improve Zoram-related navigation with the most likely search term as the title of a DAB page. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and authority

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

If any books ABOUT Mormonism and authority come out, such an article should exist then. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over. There should be an article on this, but all the content here is SYNTH from primary sourcing or misuse of reliable second sources. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TNT: mildly interesting essay as it stands, but not what Wikipedia's for. AryKun (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article as it now stands is undeniably an essay that needs to be completely rewritten. I recently acquired several excellent sources on this exact topic, and I will be working on this article as I can in order to improve it, but I do request that is not deleted until such changes are taken into consideration. As the OP hinted at regarding books, these include two books which I have added to the article. Rollidan (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJCS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Religion, and Colorado. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This probably should have been bundled with the nomination for parent station KDEO-LD. KJCS's pre-KDEO history was all-Daystar, and its current form has no separate notability from KDEO — which, when there's no notability there, is a problem. (Non-notability isn't automatically handed down like that, much as notability isn't inherited either, but it's not a good sign.) There are lists that this could be redirected to, but for the sake of consistency (given the KDEO deletion) it's probably best to jettison this entirely. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect if there is a suitable list as per WCQuidditch's post. Religious related broadcasting stations are more notable when we get info the physical paperwork. After the work that's been put into it, it would be nice to preserve the history. Karl Twist (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Media in Colorado Springs, Colorado (where it is mentioned as an EWTN station). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The information in RabbitEars suggests that article is the outdated one, Slgrandson. This was once owned by a Catholic group, but it now is owned by Simchat Torah Beit Midrash and offers channels called Oorah TV, Torah TV, Vida Vision TV, and Grace TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSFG-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Alabama#LPTV stations: it is listed there, and an ((R to list entry)) seems a sufficiently-logical alternative to deletion here. (WSFG-LD carries enough networks that merely redirecting to the list of Daystar Television Network stations — that is the main-channel affiliation — doesn't seem ideal, even if it is listed there too.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable in that it provided significant info for the Christian community. I maybe wouldn't be so strongly opposed to a redirect if key info about it would be retained in the redirect target. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karl Twist (talk • contribs) 11:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign all comments in a discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ignatius High School Gumla

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Ignatius High School Gumla

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. No reliable sources found despite Google search including news, books, and news archive. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Jharkhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pahoran

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

18 years with only primary sources. This character isn't notable and should be redirected Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latter Day Saints-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't have any stakes in this. I've just been using some of these AFD discussions to hone my source-hunting skills. There are some sources that pretty directly discuss Pahoran. The best-quality ones are in periodicals published by the BYU Religious Studies Center: Religious Educator and the BYU Studies Quarterly, for example. They're intended as scholarly literature, but written by members of the religion about a topic in that religion. I'm not sure whether those would be considered independent sources? Lubal (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these authors publish anything not in line with official dogma, they will lose their employment and in some cases membership to the church. It doesn't seem like people outside of the LDS-sphere have taken time to write anything substantial yet - implying its notability may not be established yet. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community of Nazareth

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

Poor sourcing on the page, little else found which counts towards the inclusion criteria on en.wiki

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Japan. JMWt (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful if I added an external link to the Order's website, and more content? fishhead64 (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Christianity. Skynxnex (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leaning keep It's hard to wade through all the false hits on the place of Jesus' birth, but I found at least some material from The Living Church. The issue appears to be that it's stubby. I don't know whether we have any guidelines on religious orders. Mangoe (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Former religious orders in the Anglican Communion. According to the source listed in the article, there were only three members left, with the majority having passed away in recent years. According to the website of the Anglican Church in Japan via Google Translate, the Community was disbanded in April 2023. FYI I think that the Japanese name of the order is "ナザレ修女会" and the building is "エピファニー館". Matt's talk 16:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Pelloe

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

Little on the page to suggest this cleric meets the inclusion standards. Middle ranking Anglican clerics do not have assumed notability JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and England. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do the sources in the article--mostly offline--say about him? It'd be premature to say that this should be deleted when we have sources that aren't obviously improper: Someone added them to the article at some point. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two are notifications of appointment, one is in a directory of all clergy. The only source which could count towards notability is presence in Who Was Who. JMWt (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Allfather (Benison) (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can find significant coverage of this cleric in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covenanting Association of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches

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

Subject of article is a two-church denomination with no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. All but one citation (which is trivial coverage) are to self-published material, the organization's own website, or other non-RS. Further research indicates that significant coverage does not exist and thus the subject fails the notability test. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPDC-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the station served a sizable portion of the Christian community and appeared in multiple Christian publications. Karl Twist (talk) 06:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the refs in the article are SIGCOV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. I ask please that if it comes to the stage where this may be deleted, we could look at the alternative of redirecting it to Channel 25 low-power TV stations in the United States or create another page such as Channel 25 low-power TV stations in California or similar, thus preserving the history. I've also noticed that KSPK-LD, KBRO-LD and KJCS-LD are up for Deletion Nomination. Could we please look at doing similar for those. Perhaps redirect to Channel 25 low-power TV stations in the United States or create Low-power TV stations in Colorado. It would be a shame as there was work put into them by others and a redirect and merge is always a good alternative consideration. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Karl Twist, just offer an opinion to REDIRECT and your opinion will be considered, you do not have to make a plea to the closer. Just voice your argument as a regular discussion participant. And if you want this article or others Merged, you or another editor will need to create the target article yourself. It's not part of a closer's job tasks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Hi Liz, I wasn't actually expecting the closer to do so but I take your point. I was throwing a suggestion out there incase someone had an idea to create a target to redirect to. Karl Twist (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's fair to say that if Sammi Brie can't find any significant coverage for a broadcast station, it probably doesn't exist. (Certainly, among the existing sources, they are either listings, briefer mentions, non-independent, aren't necessarily about the station to start with, or some combination thereof.) I do concur with Karl Twist's suggestion that redirecting to lists are a valid alternative to deletion when available (and have accordingly !voted to that effect in most of the applicable recent AfDs), but our lists of low-power stations television stations tend to only include currently-licensed stations, so there's no such alternative for KPDC. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Hi, well possibly a consideration to re-direct to Channel 25 low-power TV stations in the United States could be floated. I can see merit in that. And a small caption beside it would be sufficient maybe. Karl Twist (talk) 11:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A discussion of possible redirect targets would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 10:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breckbill Bible College

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT as lacking "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Currently has no secondary sources whatsoever. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and Virginia. AusLondonder (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are books that discuss Breckbill Bible College, such as the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States, Volume 5, and the Encyclopedia of American Religions. The college is well known in the conservative Wesleyan world and rather than delete the article, I would recommend that it be expanded. 97.70.170.255 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just looked at the first book mention. It is literally a single sentence.... AusLondonder (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSCHOOL and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Note specifically that ORGCRIT is one, but not the only, path to notability for a degree-granting college. Jclemens (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: What part of WP:NSCHOOL is met here? AusLondonder (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The key difference is that the stricter ORGCRIT standards do not apply to schools; GNG will suffice. What did your BEFORE turn up? Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you've read NSCHOOL because it states "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Jclemens seems to have summarised that quotation (which contains the word "or") very well. What makes you question whether that editor has read NSCHOOL? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently reconsidering this. The school does not appear to have a working web presence, and I have been unable to find it in any of the various Bible college accreditation organizations. I'm thinking it may fail V. Jclemens (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:ORGSIG:

No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists

YordleSquire (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (alternate to deletion) to the parent article Evangelical Methodist Church of America --or-- a Wesleyan world article, where encyclopedia notability is not an issue. Primary sources do not advance notability. I could not find reliable, independent, significate, secondary coverage to advance notability. See: WP:ORGSIG, WP:INHERITORG, and WP:ORGCRIT. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NSCHOOL applies here. Also, the bible college has a profile at the education department.[1] Knox490 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Knox490: NSCHOOL states that "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria." AusLondonder (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've already copied that. Other people have no problem reading and understanding the word "or", which means that this doesn't need to meet WP:ORGCRIT if it passes the general notability guideline. Why do you seem to? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being it doesn't pass either and a link to a listing on educationdepartment.org certainly doesn't prove otherwise. AusLondonder (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That may well be true, but it's no good banging on about WP:ORGCRIT as if that is the only available path to notability, and repeatedly pasting things to this discussion that agree with the person you are replying to. I can't be bothered to look for sources for an American school at the moment, but just tell us why you consider this to fail the general notability guideline, i.e. tell us the results of your WP:BEFORE. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Knox490 argument. Lokotim (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. 2 hits in google news, and 1 line mentions in google books. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of sources would be helpful in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:09, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the two existing book references count for anything. I can see part/most(?) of one, and it doesn't look substantial enough, so GNG isn't satisfied as far as I can tell. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found what seems to be a book(?) on the life of the college's founder. That would likely have coverage of the institution. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be the Google Books link (in English), which shows Manahath Press as the publisher and Max McCall as the author. Is there any evidence that the author and/or publisher are reliable? Left guide (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is mentioned in reliable tertiary sources as noted above. Raymond3023 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Categories for discussion[edit]

Christian religious leaders: further follow-up required, see Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories

Miscellaneous[edit]

Hinduism[edit]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam[edit]

Abdullah Hakim Quick

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

Doesn't seem very notable biographical article. Very few internal links. Possible self-promotion. Seaweed (talk) 19:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Allah word socks controversy

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

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YEARTEST, etc. This is a minor news story that spread because of social media, and will be forgotten about in ten months, never mind ten years. WP:NOTNOTABLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This is a serious matter and this is involving religious issue. Why you wanted to nominate it for deletion. What's your problem is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.141.191.165 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Almost TOOSOON to establish notability, some press coverage, but it was only 10 days ago. Oaktree b (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This controversy is an important issue in Malaysia. Somehow, it will be remembered by the majority of Malaysians (notably the Malays). Thegreatrebellion (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify unless and until it meets WP:NEWSEVENT. LizardJr8 (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We don't know whether it fails the Ten Year Test. There might be some things that point in that direction, and some things that do not. Can it not be moved to just "Allah socks"? Geschichte (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the incident has caused international media reports.[2][3][4] MikadoYuga (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Thegreatrebellion (talk · contribs), recent information on the issue should updated.–Fandi89 (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Students Council

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

No indication of notability. Sources are Google Maps and an insignificant press release, Google hardly finds anything on this organization. Number of members is unsourced. Icodense (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sajdah Places in Quran

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sujud Tilawa. ─ Aafī (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete or redirect to Military campaigns of Hari Singh Nalwa. Out of the 5 sources on this page, only 2 are reliable; Hari Ram Gupta and Rishi Singh. The two other sources: "Journal of the United Service Institution of India" as well as "Selections from the records of the government of Punjab" are WP:RAJ era sources written in the 1800s, so under no circumstances can we use them. The last source is a Google books snapshot with no preview available either on Google books or anywhere else on the Internet. Such snapshots have been deprecated in the reliable sources noticeboard.

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[5] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghayebi Dighi Mosque

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

(Not to be confused with the extant Gayebi Mosque in Balaganj Upazila).

All the information about Ghayebi/Gayebi/Gayibi Dighi (a pond) in the two cited sources is: "Simultaneously a good number of sites were explored. These include ..., Gayebi Dighi Mound, ... [in a list of more than a dozen sites]" and "Gayibi Dighi at Bara Thakuri (a stone inscription of 400 years old, now preserved in the Bangladesh national museum, has been discovered from this dighi)". Neither of the sources mention a mosque.

The author of the article asserted, "There are enough sources on the web if searched in Bengali". That is contradicted by my experience. The only other reliable source I could find in any language is another brief mention of the inscription.[6] With zero reliable sources about the mosque (if there ever was one), the topic fails WP:GNG. It is unsuitable for merging or redirection, let alone for a stand alone article. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Islam, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samte Khoda

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Iran. Thanks, Please feel free to ping/mention -- User4edits (T) 14:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear User4edits

This article is significant because it is about one of the most popular television programs of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting Organization, which has been running since 2009.

Please remove it from the removal list

Thanks

Please see this article (IRIB TV3) for verification

The name of the TV show Samte Khoda is mentioned in it M.sharaki (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has the necessary infrastructure, including a complete biography of the Samte Khoda program with authentic and documented references and the availability of the article in Persian language. M.sharaki (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — M.sharaki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep In my opinion, it is an article that convinces people and has the protocols of Wikipedia.Yahosein525 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) — Yahosein525 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom. I agree with what nom said.Tehonk (talk) 02:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has the necessary infrastructure, including a complete biography of the God side program with authentic and documented references and the availability of the article in Persian language.M.sharaki (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: M.sharaki (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
You may only !vote once. Please strike through one of your keeps since they are duplicates. Star Mississippi 22:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI agree with keeping this article. ThanksHadimirjafari (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Hadimirjafari (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

73 Sects (Hadith)

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

Fail WP:GNG. Topic should not have a stand-alone article as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Zsohl ^(Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zsohl ^(Talk) 11:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are countless hadiths. They are complicated, potentially speculative and certainly contested (see Hadith and Criticism of hadith). Giving this one its own article risks giving the topic undue weight. While I'm not sure this is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue (nor is it an indiscriminate inclusion of information, as the author has covered some commentary on the text), I agree it is not appropriate for a standalone article. Local Variable (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm actually seeing quite a lot of reliable sources on Google Scholar and Google Books discussing this particular hadith, many of which refer to it as being particularly famous (e.g. here, here). I think this easily meets notability guidelines. There are a lot of hadith, but this one seems to have had particular cultural impact -- and I note that we do have pages on individual bible chapters.— Moriwen (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 73 Sects should merit a standalone article. Dawn has a detailed 11 year old article on The mystery of 73 sects. There appears a nice journal article, The Influence of the 73 Sects Ḥadīth on the Classification of Theological Sects in Islamic Heresiographical Literature, and another one, Ibn Taymiyyah on the Hadith of the 73 Sects, and a book, that adds on more to this. This much should help pass basic WP:GNG. However, the article does require some work. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly covered in secondary scholarly literature as a standalone subject of note that has influenced the theology and culture. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 11#Category:New Christians (conversos), proposed renaming of Category:New Christians (conversos) to either: ALT1 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (moriscos and conversos) or ALT2 Category:New Christians (conversos) to Category:New Christians (Iberia)

Judaism topics[edit]

Proposed 2024 red heifer sacrifice

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Judaism. Owen× ☎ 22:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Jacoby

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

Non-notable entrepreneur that fails WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. Sources are passing mentions. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps a partial merge into the NIF article would be an appropriate remedy?

FortunateSons (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This [7] (you need ProQuest access) from The Forward in 2000 should be good for a WP:GNG-point. These [8][9] are better than passing mention. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [10][11][12] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have removed a number of references which were passing mentions and have added other references which demonstrate the subject's notability. Misha Wolf (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Misha Wolf. The sourcing is now sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mordvins (term for Jews)

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

The article does not seem to be based on WP:Reliable sources. I checked the English sources and one Russian source in this article, and none of them supports the claims that Mordvins or other ethnic groups mentioned here would have been Jewish (hence the many ((failed verification)) tags in the article). I did not check all the Russian sources, but I suspect the same is true for them. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, Judaism, and Russia. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of these, however, were indeed Jews, like Erzyas, likely Meshchers (Mazhars/Mishars), Mokshas, Muromians, Burtas, etc" I'm lost for words. Speedy Delete, and all edits made by the author of this article probably should be checked thoroughly. Finstergeist (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The author of this article is apparently an admin over at Moksha Wikipedia 😐. Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it too, and I can only wonder about the quality of articles on there. At least on Russian Wikipedia, their contributions look nowhere near as bad (probably because such extreme claims would be challenged very quickly on there). Finstergeist (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As above, lost for words. Would it be wrong for me to tag this article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax? Also I think someone needs to bring the account creator to administrator attention, since their entire edit history seems to consist of this kind of behavior. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Max Vasmer etymological dictionary has a mention: "Mordva" - a derogatory term towards Jews and children - is widespread up to Smolensk, where the word "mordvin" is also used to mean "troublemaker". I'm hesitant to propose a merge due to the article's quality, but it doesn't seem to be a hoax in its entirety, and a one-sentence mention at Mordva (slur) or Mordvins is possibly warranted. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PaulT2022 thanks for noting this—important context for sure. At the related AfD for Mordva (slur), @Finstergeist claims that the pejorative term for Jews is merely homophonic...but it's clearly unrelated to the main topic (Mordvins don't have anything to do with Jews). Thoughts on this?

Also worth noting, as pointed out at the talk page for the article under discussion here, that the lead seems to be copied from Turk (term for Muslims) with keywords swapped:

The ethnonym Turks (Greek: Τούρκοι/Tourkoi, Serbo-Croatian: Turci/Турци, Albanian: turk) has been commonly used by the non-Muslim Balkan peoples to denote all Muslim settlers in the region, regardless of their ethno-linguistic background. The majority of these, however, were indeed ethnic Turks.
Brusquedandelion (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vasmer doesn't seem to imply homophony, whereas Nosovich (the quote from the lead image in Mordva (slur)) does.

I don't have an opinion whether either viewpoint is WP:FRINGE. PaulT2022 (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This dictionary entry is actually mentioned in the Russian Wikipedia article on Mordvins, but the chronological and geographical distance is still too big to support the extraordinary claim that this meaning has anything to do with medieval Mordvins (and to my knowledge, no reliable source makes such claims either). Finstergeist (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I think this article is of such poor quality that merging it would be more work than just starting with a clean slate FortunateSons (talk) 12:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:TNT. We need verification and a real article, not this huge mess. Everyone knows in 2024 that we are not a fee web host. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish comic book characters

AfDs for this article:

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

This list seems to be an unreferenced fan-cruft list. None of the entries have citations, and I don't think this subject is notable. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Judaism, and Lists. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public Heroes, Secret Jews: Jewish Identity and Comic Books, Rethinking the Jewish-Comics Connection, Jewish Comics; Or, Visualizing Current Jewish Narrative, Comic Books, Tragic Stories: Will Eisner’s American Jewish History. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even a year since the last nomination. As I said then: Enough links to articles about the characters to justify a list. Category:Jewish superheroes and Category:Fictional Jews in comics exist and show notable entries for this list. Dream Focus 02:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NLIST says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The subject of Jewish comic book characters has been amply discussed, see Jclemens' links for a start. Also, it is bad practice to re-nominate an article for deletion after nine months, and not account for the previous consensus in your nomination. Toughpigs (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited suggest the topic of Jewish comic book characters or Jewish themes in comics may be notable, but this is not what we have here. What we have is a mostly unreferenced list. No such list has been shown to exist (sources cited are about a wider concept). And such a list desperately needs references, since who is Jewish and who is not can be controversial (antisemitism, anyone?). We need to excercise extra care here, and what we have fails WP:NLIST/WP:LISTN, WP:OR and WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just easily found and added a bunch of references. Searching for a name and "Jew" is not hard to do. I don't see how it could possibly be controversial to say someone is Jewish, especially not a fictional character. Dream Focus 03:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really think you would benefit from reviewing the literature, including that I cited above. Also, your argument doesn't logically follow: the nom cited notability. I addressed notability. You argue that a list of Jewish comic characters is not notable when I've just demonstrated that Jewish comic characters, as a topic, are notable. That's textbook LISTN: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Even given your habit of suggesting that surmountable problems make an article deletion-worthy, that's not even what you're arguing here. I'm puzzled; your arguments, even when I disagree with them, are usually much stronger than this. Jclemens (talk) 05:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources from Jclemens, theme is commonly discussed in media.

FortunateSons (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page contains ample references and garners public interest. Progoees (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN and the sources provided by JClemens as it shows the characters being discussed in the media/reliable sources. Also, deletion is not cleanup. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish International Connection of New York

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

This is one of many Jewish Associations but I cannot find anything particularly notable about it. Suggest delete unless significant events or connections can be found. Newhaven lad (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism[edit]

Battle of Haidru (1828)

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage in both Hari Ram Gupta's and Rishi Singh's work, the extent of which are only small, singular paragraphs does not justify an entire Wikipedia article and fails Wikipedia's standards for notability-[13] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Sikhism, and Pakistan. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sutlej

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

Apart from Surjit Singh Gandhi and the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, all the sources are unreliable and have been thoroughly and repeatedly deprecated such as the Suraj Granth (a primary source written in the 1700s) and Macauliffe (a RAJ era source). Harish Dhillon is a self published source; the author was a headmaster/principal of schools which enrolled middle school children-[14] according to his book's acknowledgements. The coverage in both aforementioned sources fails Wikipedia's guidelines for significant coverage by a long shot-[15] as they only include a small paragraph about the battle. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and Punjab. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the battle happened, there are not enough reliable sources for it to merit its own article. We can acknowledge the battle by including a sentence in Mughal-Sikh Wars. Ixudi (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Michni

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

None of the sources comply with WP:HISTRS. Rattan Singh Jaggi is a litterateur active in the Language department of his institution, with no educational background in history, and primarily specializes in the literary analysis of Sikh holy books and writing hagiographies based off them, as well as translating texts into Hindi and Punjabi. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/chandigarh/gurmat-scholar-dr-jaggi-chosen-for-padma-shri-8405050/ He is also used as the inline citation for the infobox which makes an astounding claim that 100 Sikhs defeated 5000 Afghans. Bobby Singh Bansal is a self proclaimed historian, with no educational training/credentials in history nor any peer reviewed books or journals or scholarly reviews of his work; his work was also self published (Hay House). The Punjabi Kosh is a vernacular source which also seems to be a hagiography. Autar Singh Sandhu is a WP:RAJ era source as it was written in 1935 and Sohan Singh Seetal is a poet and lyricist; both sources were also deprecated by an admin involved in South Asian topics. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:34, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Autar Singh Sandhu's book was explicitly deprecated by an admin here in the reliable sources noticeboard-[16]. "As Acroterion and Springee indicated, assessment of a source's reliability should take into account a multitude of factors. For example, the Nalwa book is likely an unacceptable source because of its age (1935), publisher, and lack of academic reviews and peer-reviewed articles written by its author (at least I didn't find any on a quick search). The author holding "only" an MA would be the least of the concerns because during the 1930s the PhD degree was not as well-established as it is now and many recognized experts and academics lacked it." Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Afghanistan, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After relinquishing sources that are either poor or fail WP:V and in non-english language, two sources by historians Autar Singh Sandhu and Bobby Singh Bansal look OK to me where both pass WP:HISTRS. I cannot tell if Bansal is self proclaimed historian from what little quick research I found on him. Raj era is if it's written by Britons or Briton diplomats and administrators or under the guidance and review of Briton administrators. Some of these are like Lepel Griffin, Michael MacAuliffe, Sir John Withers McQueen. I found a source by Autar Singh Sandhu published in 1987 that too has coverage on this event on page 79 of book [17], General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire. Many other historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 14:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expected as much from you. Bobby Singh Bansal by no means passes WP:HISTRS, he has zero educational background or training in history, nor does he have any peer reviewed books or journals to his name. His books were all self published. In fact, his current profession is a city councillor. This article makes it abundantly clear that the term "historian" was a self conferred title based on interests as opposed to any educational background.

Autar Singh Sandhu did not publish any book in 1987, the Google Books link your provided is not Autar Singh Sandhu's original work, but rather a reprint by a different publisher. Google Book links are also known to be notoriously unreliable with publication dates. And it seems exceedingly unlikely that someone who wrote a book in 1935-[18], would then write another book on the same subject, 54 years later. There is hardly any information available about Autar Singh Sandhu, apart from the fact that he wrote one book in 1935 about Hari Singh Nalwa; thoroughly unreliable. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Historians like Tahir Kamran, Ian Talbot, have depended on Autar Singh Sandhu's secondary works where they used his book General Hari Singh Nalwa: Builder of the Sikh Empire (New Delhi: Uppal Publishing House, 1987). Bobby Singh Bansal has too been depended upon by same historians and more like Himadri Banerjee and William Dalrymple, including academic professors of social sciences and Humanities, Anjali Roy and journalists like Anita Anand. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anjali Roy commented on Bansal's documentary, which was not related to historical claims, but rather on the Sikhs in Afghanistan who recently immigrated to the UK. Himadri Banarjee cited a newspaper column written by Bansal, not his books-[19]. You must also be aware that even if a source is used as reference in a reliable secondary source, it does not automatically make that source reliable by association, it must be judged on its own merits; Khafi Khan is cited hundreds of times in various books, but he cannot be used as a source on Wikipedia for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
don't know who Khafi Khan is but if not a secondary source or from 20th century and beyond then inarguably Khafi Khan would be unreliable but not the ones in discussion here. RangersRus (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to read WP:HISTRS carefully. "Historical scholarship is generally not: Popular works that were not reviewed, especially works by journalists, or memoirs" as well the section "What is "recent" scholarship in history?". In the case of Autar Singh Sandhu, an admin has already determined that 1935 is far too old coupled with the lack of academic reviews and scholarly works by the author. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jadunath Sarkar sources are used that are as old and its because historians today depend on his secondary work and it is same case with Sandhu. RangersRus (talk) 13:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few cites in later books is nowhere near a mitigating factor since scholarly books cite a large corpus of all sorts of work nor does it prove that historians relied on him in any substantive manner. If that was the case, entering Autar Singh Sandhu's name on the Internet would return far more in depth details and reviews of his work as is the case for Jadunath Sarkar who has an entire Britannica article dedicated to him, as opposed to one Internet archive link to a book. If you insist he is reliable; please provide at the very least one actual scholarly review of his work or at least one other book he authored outside of Hari Singh Nalwa.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sandhu is in bibliography and notes of other historians. Maybe not wide known like Jadunath Sarkar but in wikipedia you can use scholarly works where possible and if scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works can be used. I have my vote and let's give others space to weigh in with votes too. RangersRus (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentions in bibliographies is not included as a factor in WP:HISTRS, things like the educational background of the author, whether the work was published by an academic/scholarly institution, and scholarly reviews of the book (regardless of whether the source is an academic or popular work) are. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]