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.

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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Religion. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except ((Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName)) is used for MFD and ((transclude xfd)) for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with ((prodded)) will suffice.

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]

Jonathan Pageau

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

Article about a non-notable religious leader and speaker. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are self-published and opinion piece. No actual WP:SIGCOV on the subject. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, France, and Canada. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we can agree that Jonathan Pageau is not world famous. At all. However within a specialist sphere of religious communities interested in orthodox and catholic art, as seen by treatments in various religious journals, the artist has received significant coverage. Hence the artist's thought and work is discussed in the following reliable sources:

East, Brad (2024-05-08). "Digital Lectors for a Postliterate Age". ChristianityToday.com. Retrieved 2024-06-24.
Brierley, Justin. "I saw Jordan Peterson at the O2 last night. He's asking all the right questions". Premier Christianity. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Dreher, Rod (2024-03-02). "Jonathan Pageau: A Prophet Rises From Quebec and YouTube". europeanconservative.com. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Taylor, Darrick (2024-04-09). "Jordan Peterson and the Apocalypse". Crisis Magazine. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
Carr, Kathleen. "Jonathan Pageau". Catholic Art Institute. Retrieved 2024-03-13.
Barron, Bishop Robert (2021-10-13). "How to live a meaningful life". The Catholic Voice. Retrieved 2024-05-21.
"'Living Tradition' Symposium in Charleston, SC". OrthoChristian.Com. Retrieved 2024-05-31.

And there are also primary sources that have been used in the current iteration of the article, but they are not needed to establish notability, rather they seem to be used for descriptive statements of facts. I believe from the above sources that it's established the subject is notable, albeit within a very particular field of endeavour. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One perspective is clear: while Pageau's outlook is primarily religious, much of what he has done is applicable to secular art as well. It is erroneous to characterize his impact as only 'religious' (personally, I find such characterization as typical of the non-NPOV shown by people hostile to religion).

I found the concluding pages of his Snow White and the Widow Queen - a non-religious text, I might add - to be clever and original. More books in this series of fairy tales are still to be published.

Yes, I can see where people might conclude that WP:TOOSOON might apply, but he already has a substantial published body of work - well, more substantial than my four unpublished books (ha!). Also, he has been interviewed over and over by and collaborated with people judged to be notable such as Jordan Peterson, Robert Barron, Paul Kingsnorth, and Gavin Ashenden: they think he is notable.

Thank you for listening. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 02:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you join in the discussion @Tfdavisatsnetnet - I know you're strongly interested in this topic. To be fair to the administrators looking at the discussion here, they will only be interested in whether the subject of the article is notable, as seen by good secondary sources. However, you do make a valuable point here, in that known writers write about the subject at hand, so Rod Dreher writes about Jonathan Pageau and Robert Barron talks about (and talks with) Jonathan Pageau and Paul Kingsnorth writes about Jonathan Pageau, all of which would indicate, to me, that there is substantial coverage of the subject (while not being exactly world famous). MatthewDalhousie (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to: do YouTube videos count as much as printed material? If so, then Jonathan Pageau IS notable, despite the fact that the sources are primary and not secondary. Again, personally I find him to be far more notable than many others. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you need to point youtube videos. More relevant to point to places where known thinkers are writing about Jonathan Pageau, which certainly includes:

I don't there's an article by Jordan Peterson where he describes the significance of Pageau's work to him, but of course he does co-author a paper with Pageau here, which alone makes him significant, given that Peterson is notable. Still, ultimately, what makes Pageau notable is that he has received coverage from reliable sources in the area of religion like Christianity Today. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)

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

Fails WP:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Iraq. Dan arndt (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering this is about an organization, have you done/are you able to research it in Arabic? Spagooder (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ve searched in Arabic and aside from material published by the order itself I’ve only found material from Chaldean community sources, i.e. not Iraqi national or regional news. From what I can see notability is not established and it would probably make sense to look for a merge target such as Chaldean Catholic Church. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Orientls (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Clearly deleting information on a century-old religious order does not benefit Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions[edit]

Religion Templates[edit]

Atheism[edit]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Buddhism[edit]

Sanghamitta Balika Vidyalaya

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Buddhism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

Christianity[edit]

Bash-n-the-Code

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Christianity, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question is the Keith Lancaster mentioned Keith Lancaster? It seems likely to me they're different people based on the genre and timing. Jclemens (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment they had quite a few charted songs, see [1], including biographical bit that could be used as source. Broc (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found that prove the article meets WP:N and is not WP:OR. I find it hard to believe a "musical derivative" of a band not deemed notable enough to have its own article (Found Free), is itself notable. —Mjks28 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Online I found this review, but this seems more like a blog. There are some coverage regarding shows, and on Newspapers.com all the coverage are of that nature. Mark Lee Townsend was a member by the way. Geschichte (talk) 04:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this but not much else. Contradicts information found here, but is worth checking out. ❤History Theorist❤ 01:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWTJ-LP

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

Insufficient-notability low-power religious FM. Redirect conversion reverted by IP. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or restore redirect to List of radio stations in New York: any time a BLAR is contested for such a non-notable entity, it reduces the value of publicly retaining the page history any further. This is the type of radio station article (LPFM, started within the last decade or so) that, after the 2021 RfC that finally abolished the previous, more existence-based and non-GNG inclusion standards in this topic area, we have been (very) slowly trying to purge when they are remnants of the previous standards — this 2023-created article isn't even that. We need actual significant coverage — the FCC, the station itself, and Radio-Locator aren't enough anymore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

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

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A person claiming to be one of the subjects of the article requested that it be deleted because they don't want to be associated with the other person? The title is probably inappropriate and would be more appropriate as something else but this does appear to be a notable event. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fathers of the Church

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BOOKS, with only primary sources used in article. A BEFORE search is complicated by the title of the series. Google Books and Google Scholar turn up citations to individual books in the series, but I can find no secondary coverage of the series as a series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the book exists! [2] [3] and there are reviews [4] [5] Not sure where to go with this. It's a massive undertaking so is probably notable in its field but not enough coverage yet— Iadmc ♫^talk 03:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Logos has the entire 130 volumes for sale electronically for a cool $2365.00 before discounts. Not every book sold by Logos is notable, but many (most?) of them are, and recognized as reference volumes for Christian and adjacent religious studies. How many of the 130 included volumes are individually notable? I have no idea. We've had previous discussions on book series articles recently, and looking at this in that light, I'm relatively certain this should be kept, but more research would be reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens and @Iadmc - Looks like three of the four links posted above are to direct links to the individual books, not reviews, but the Sage Publications link is to a 1948 review of the series. If we can turn up one or two more reviews of the series itself, I will consider that sufficient to keep and withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was hard to find those! I'll try though soon — Iadmc ♫^talk 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was not able to turn them up in my BEFORE search but I would like to keep the article if we can establish additional sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was just a discussion on how series relate to NBOOKS, last month I think, and I believe the general consensus was that a series involving multiple notable books merited an article. Of course, it would then have to list or link to those books, which it currently does not. Jclemens (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From that discussion, actually, I'd say that a series article without individual book articles to link to can be a sensible outcome per WP:PAGEDECIDE when individual books are notable but readers will be better served by series-level coverage. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LEvalyn @Jclemens Can you share a link to that discussion? I am operating off the WP:NBOOK policy, which does not address series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 Sure, it's here. Looking more closely, there were a few folks who wanted to treat "large general-topic publisher book series" different from, e.g. Game of Thrones-style series. But if folks are able to turn up NBOOK reviews for a few of the individual books in this particular series, there would at least be a case to be made. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's see what comes up. After reading the debate, I'm reluctant to withdraw this nomination on the basis of proposals that have not been adopted as policy; my read of the governing policy would still require WP:GNG to be demonstrated for a series even if individual books are notable. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But each book having it's own article would be mad! Better to have them under one umbrella surely? — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dearth of reviews I'm not sure how many are notable on their own anyway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: I'll throw my two cents in: I think that if the series is published as a series and there are many reviews for the individual books (but those are not independently notable themselves) then the series should be treated as notable. That said, it should absolutely be up to the quality of the reviews and where they were published. Offhand the reviews for the series looks to be pretty numerous. They seem to get routinely reviewed in The Heythrop Journal and Scripta Theologica, but have also received reviews from Isis (journal), New Blackfriars, and so on. My workplace's database is pulling up hundreds of reviews. Granted I haven't been able to verify them all, but that does point fairly heavily towards notability and I do think it would be a disservice to not cover the series because there aren't enough individual volumes that are notable. That's kind of taking a "not seeing the forest for the trees" approach. Besides, with something like this it's usually better to just cover the series rather than the individual volumes in order to prevent the creation of dozens of articles (assuming that the individual books are notable). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offhand I am seeing enough reviews to where I could probably argue individual notability and articles for some volumes, but I think that might be a waste considering that these would likely be multiple stub articles. Better to have the one article and cut off unnecessary individual ones. (Here is what I'm seeing, if anyone is curious.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are dozens of reviews of articles in the series: people write reviews every time a new one comes out: so the series is certainly notable, with many reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some books in the series are independently notable and were previously published. Augustine's The City of God has been published in many different versions over the centuries, for example, and thus there are many reviews. But are there reviews of the version published in this series? Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm neutral on whether the article should be kept, but if it is kept it should be renamed as The Fathers of the Church should redirect to Church Fathers, easily a primary redirect. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)

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

Fails WP:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Iraq. Dan arndt (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Considering this is about an organization, have you done/are you able to research it in Arabic? Spagooder (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’ve searched in Arabic and aside from material published by the order itself I’ve only found material from Chaldean community sources, i.e. not Iraqi national or regional news. From what I can see notability is not established and it would probably make sense to look for a merge target such as Chaldean Catholic Church. Mccapra (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Orientls (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. Clearly deleting information on a century-old religious order does not benefit Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romy Tiongco

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

The article does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Politics. TheNuggeteer (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Christianity, Philippines, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the two programmes on the BBC all about him and the first of these and its report his on him were what led me to start this page and think him notable enough - perhaps via general notability rather than as a politician per se. A political activist, NGO worker and then politician (Msrasnw (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment - maybe you should find more sources, only 2 out of the 7 sources work.
TheNuggeteer (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are 2 "working" sources, that should be enough for WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is a video source which does not work anymore, is one source okay? TheNuggeteer (talk) 05:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our "policy" on this is WP:LINKROT, and it being dead should not be taken against the article, more so if the reference is more than a decade old.

So no, your premise of this article having just one source doesn't hold. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did a WP:BEFORE search outside of the sources in the article and can't find anything which suggests to me that the article passes WP:GNG. The non-working links do not necessarily suggest there was secondary coverage of him, either - the magazine just has a wordpress site and the BBC radio bit is an interview, which are not secondary. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traders Point Christian Church

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only one source is independent and significant. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Indiana. User:Namiba 14:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First hit in Gsearch is their own website, then it's off into un-RS... The article uses primary sources now and I don't find coverage of this church. Having the fastest growing congregation in 2016 isn't terribly notable and the rest isn't helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's significant coverage in a book (see Diamond, 2003), as well as in Indianapolis Monthly. The Indy Star coverage available can support facts in the article but doesn't go toward notability because (even though some is in great depth) it's generally coverage of new locations and inclusion in "fastest growing" lists that WP:ORGCRIT excludes. Even so, the Diamond book and Indianapolis Monthly piece should cross the bar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified above by Dclemen1971, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the two above, but I'd like to see a lot more about the church's history than 'it started in 1834...oh it's a megachurch now' and its history needs to be seriously filled in. Nate • (chatter) 21:44, 19 June 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]

Shivaharkaray

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

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! _Jovian ^Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. _Jovian ^Eclipse 04:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not a HOAX, at the least. Saqib (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This edit from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. _Jovian ^Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jovian Eclipse, But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express, The Economic Times. Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. — Saqib (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every "source" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N. _Jovian ^Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam[edit]

Muhammad Ali Mirza

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

There is no specific WP:SIGCOV, and no in-depth coverage. There is routine coverage. Which clearly fails WP:GNG. He is a common youtuber, just known for his controversial statements. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Pakistan, and Punjab. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Hammad (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will reserve a !vote for now but this and this doesn't look like some ROTM coverage. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:SIGCOV as we have in-depth coverage in at least two publications, i.e. BBC Urdu ([6], [7]) and Independent Urdu ([8]). Further references in Dawn ([9], [10], [11]). Some analysis of his work here ([12]). He is controversial like Martin Luther was during his lifetime which is ok. 2400:ADC7:5104:D400:6520:B74E:4354:AD86 (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by Saqib meet WP:SIGCOV standards, with extensive reporting about him, sometimes due to his controversial statements and attempts on his life. If he is not notable, why is there so much coverage about him? Sources like BBC Urdu, as well as Indian and Pakistani news sites, report about him. In my POV the subject meets WP:GNG and the article should be kept. Minor portion of the article which are from non reliable sources can be removed. GrabUp - Talk 12:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Association of Palestine

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

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

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

Opening this deletion discussion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE on the talk page (here). Would love to hear editors' thoughts going forward. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would urge anyone who comments in this discussion to look on the talk page from (one of) the subjects of the article. GnocchiFan (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is too notable to delete. Maryam Rostampour is arguably notable as well, despite the fact that Marziyeh Amirizadeh is the only one of the two with continuing coverage. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Christianity, Islam, Iran, and Georgia (U.S. state). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh exists as a draft. Assuming that both women are notable, perhaps Draft:Marziyeh Amirizadeh could be added to article space after any necessary improvements are made, and this article could be moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller (her current name), thereby preserving the edit history. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If agreement is that there is enough information to split, I think this is a good idea. Otherwise, I think that Marziyeh Amirizadeh's name be removed from this article per request and this article moved to Maryam Rostamour-Keller per your suggestion. GnocchiFan (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split I think it is reasonable to have this specific article deleted. However, I would be open to the thought of having a separate article for Maryam Rostampour if she is notable enough. Marziyeh Amirizadeh on the surface level appears to be a notable figure (I have not done much research into her life though), so I would be more comfortable with having a separate article for her. ❤History Theorist❤ 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor claiming to be the subject says on the talk page that she paid $300 to have her Wikipedia article written. Is this the current draft, created by an editor who has edited no other topic? PamD 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations from the Muslim Woman

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

A lecture that I can't find non-passing coverage of. What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati's views on women and Islam. There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something. If not, redirect to Shariati's biography. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ali Shariati Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 20 June 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]

Sikhism[edit]

G. B. Singh

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, Politics, Sikhism, Colorado, and Oklahoma. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. No sources provide him any biographical coverage. CharlesWain (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Only mentioned in passing over 2 non-notable books. Orientls (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Fuller, Amy Elisabeth, ed. (2009). "Sing, G.B. 1954–". Contemporary Authors: A Bio-Bibliographical Guide to Current Writers in Fiction, General Nonfiction, Poetry, Journalism, Drama, Motion Pictures, Television, and Other Fields. Vol. 270. Detroit: Gale. pp. 396–398. ISBN 978-0-7876-9528-6. ISSN 0275-7176. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Born September 5, 1954, in India, G.B. Singh eventually moved to the United States where he attended the University of Oklahoma. Educated as a periodontist, Singh joined the United States Army Medical Department, launching his career in the military. He gradually rose through the ranks, attaining the position of colonel, unusual in that he is one of few Sikh-American's to ever achieve such a high rank within a branch of the United States armed forces. Sikh-Americans who wear turbans must receive special dispensation if they are to be allowed to hold higher military ranks, and none of them are allowed to be part of units that go into combat. Singh wears his turban proudly along with his military uniform, a trait that has caused considerable talk in this post-9/11 world. While performing his duties, Singh has been stationed all across the country, and has also been stationed in Korea twice. Beyond his work for the Army, Singh is also a student of Indian politics, study- ing that nation's political history and religion, particularly Hinduism, and the life and works of Gandhi."
2. Reed, Bill (2004-08-24). "Deconstructing Gandhi - Author claims 'Mahatma' guilty of racism, divisiveness". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  The article notes: "Yet, Col. G.B. Singh isn't obeying the rules. His first book, "Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity," portrays Gandhi as one of the most dangerous leaders of the 20th century. ... The book is the culmination of 20 years of research, as Singh evolved from one of Gandhi's admirers to one of his harshest critics. ... Singh has a kindly face framed by a dense beard and turban. He appears gentle and soft-spoken until he delves into the subject of Gandhi. Then his passion flares. Singh was born in India to a family of Hindus and Sikhs. He was educated in the scriptures, and he was trained in the godlike worship of Mahatma Gandhi. ... Singh became a periodontist and emigrated to the United States in 1976. He joined the Army and rose to the rank of colonel, making him one of the highest-ranking officers in the U.S. military to wear a turban."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G.B. Singh to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging the only AfD participant from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. B. Singh who has edited in the last three years: David Eppstein (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination. Cunard (talk) 07:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources by Cunard only prove that this is a case of WP:BLP1E; person known only for writing misleading attack pieces on Gandhi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The books were published and received coverage over a several year period so that isn't "one event". PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any "reviews" that would make him notable and in any case, it does not change the fact that per WP:BLP1E, we need to assess that "how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources", and this subject fails that. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Cursory search does not show anything different. Azuredivay (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We shouldn't push to delete material merely because we disagree with it; the question is whether it is notable. The two related AfDs on two of his books Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi: Behind the Mask of Divinity and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gandhi Under Cross Examination have turned up possibly as many as six in-depth reliable reviews for the first book and three for the second, well over my threshold for WP:AUTHOR. These are mainstream sources (and point out the fringe and partisan nature of the books) so the requirement of WP:FRINGE for mainstream coverage is met. He may be a partisan conspiracy theorist and he may be incorrect on all points; per FRINGE, that raises a higher bar, that we use mainstream and not fringe sources to cover him, but I think that bar is met. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~- Only 2 sources provided above includes a database of many non-notable authors and a 20 years old random coverage from Colorado's The Gazette, a local daily. None of this establishes WP:GNG, let alone gaining significant coverage from the expert sources of this field. Orientls (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking duplicate "delete" comment. Cunard (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fringe writer. Agletarang (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: G. B. Singh received 820 words of coverage in Gale's reference work Contemporary Authors. The Wikipedia article for Contemporary Authors cites a Texas State Library book for the statement "The work is a standard in libraries and has been honored by the American Library Association as a distinguished reference title."
G. B. Singh received a 1,760-word profile in The Gazette (Colorado Springs). The Gazette is a respected regional newspaper that won Pulitzer Prizes in 1990 and 2014. Colorado Springs is the second-most populous city in the state of Colorado, and the 39th-most-populous city in the United States.
The two sources were published five years apart. WP:BLP1E does not apply to an author who has received this level of coverage. WP:BLP1E does not apply because neither "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" nor "The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" apply. G. B. Singh clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria.
Cunard (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]