Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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:
Purge page cache watch


Religion

edit

World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan

edit
World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Talk:World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan#Requested move 29 October 2024, concerns were brought up regarding the notability of this topic in sources, specifically such a way to make it notable and not violate WP:NOTNEWS. In addition, trying to find an "official" name for this topic seemed to provide no results, and the claim that this is the "world's largest" without "in Afghanistan" was apparently disproven 2 years after the creation of this article's subject [1]. In a nutshell, there seems to be no references to illustrate that the subject of this article had encyclopedic notability that can withstand WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Myceteae: Ping participant of the move request. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for deletion. I was the sole participant in the aforementioned RM discussion, besides the nominator, Steel1943. Our discussion reached a dead end due to a lack of ongoing coverage in English language sources establishing an appropriateWP:COMMONNAME or official name. Some English language sources revealed new record holder's for "world's largest [handmade] Quran," thus calling into question variations on the current descriptive title. Additionally, there are no Wikipedia articles in other languages for this topic. All of this raised the question of notability and led Steel1943 and I to pursue this AfD discussion. I would defer to other editors on the ultimate decision. I'm not familiar enough with the topic and related subject area to conclusively determine whether appropriate sources, in English or not, exist to establish notability.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerónimo Lluberas

edit
Gerónimo Lluberas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kotsko

edit
AfDs for this article:
Adam Kotsko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 7 years ago and closed with no consensus. Since then, there have been no secondary sources written that indicate this person's notability. While he is an author, his books aren't really notable either. Please discuss. Sirocco745 (talk) 08:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kotsko has not gained in relevance in the years since the first AfD; back then, some editors argued for keeping the article b/c its subject might become notable. It was a weird argument, and it hasn't panned out. Note how self-referential and promotional the references are. I count around 10 references to Kotsko's blog, e.g. him writing about himself. I suspect some serious lack of NPOV among the editors @Mothomsen03 and @Jtkingsley. Delete. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I guess, for the following reasons. (I have been called to this discussion due to having started the article in 2013, although in the meantime I've pretty much come around to "let's just not have any BLPs at all if we can help it". Anyway.) Kotsko is notable, if at all, for his writing. And indeed he has authored multiple books that meet the first criterion of WP:NBOOK, namely that they have been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. Specifically: Awkwardness was reviewed in The New Inquiry and discussed in depth in Critical Studies in Television (Sage); Creepiness has been reviewed in Critical Inquiry (U of C) and analyzed in depth in Consumption Markets & Culture (T&F); The Prince of This World has reviewed in Theory & Event (JHU Press) and Philosophy in Review; Zizek and Theology has been reviewed in New Blackfriars (Cambridge University Press) and in the International Journal of Systematic Theology (Cambridge University Press); Neoliberalism's Demons has been reviewed in Political Theology (T&F) and is the subject of at least five pages of close examination in Maxwell Kennel's Postsecular History (Springer Nature); The Politics of Redemption has been the subject of reviews in Anglican Theological Review and Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology. (For most of these there are certainly more, but I'm stopping at two.) Now you may argue that notability is not transitive and therefore this significant coverage of Kotsko's various works does not constitute significant coverage of him for GNG purposes. That's a plausible argument and if it carries the day, we will presumably want to split the existing article into stubs on each of his individual books, and dabbify the page to point to those book-specific articles. Of course each of those new articles will need to have some information about the book's author, so we will have actually just multiplied our BLP and maintenance issues. And since notability is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page, and the resulting stubs are unlikely to be built into substantial articles in the near term, we will likely soon find that the reader and the project would be better served by merging these stubs into a single article on Adam Kotsko, as NBOOK itself suggests. Given that such an outcome leaves us back exactly where we started, WP:NOTBURO suggests that we should just keep the article now and save ourselves the hassle. -- Visviva (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reviews brought by Visviva (which I have AGF'd). Seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except none of the article is actually based on any of the book reviews mentioned, just citations of the subject's personal blog. 2404:4408:476B:4500:A5FF:76BD:1588:2591 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subject is notable then the article can be improved using the sources that have been brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor-Fliedner-Gymnasium

edit
Theodor-Fliedner-Gymnasium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TNT. Article created October 2024. Retrieval date on some sources showing 2019. It would just take a lot of time to go through each source. It would be more effective to get of it, then someone else can re-create it if needed. Created and edited upon by a problematic AI injector. See the talk page and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Possible_academic_boosterism_ref_spamming. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::This not correct. It is a proper translation following standard Wiki guidelines, not an AI-generated text. Please avoid these unfounded accusations. If you have concerns, consider addressing them constructively rather than through repeated reverts and deletion sprees. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::Both you and user Graywalls are jointly engaging in actions that appear to target and silence the main profile in the context of constructive talks. If the profile is blocked, any engagement can only occur through IPs, which may change frequently due to being away from home – this is a technical matter, not intentional. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*:::These highly immature blocking actions, especially in the context of content-driven opinions that seek to solve the situation, constitute bullying, harassment, and silencing. 185.137.36.82 (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to dispute your block at your account's talk page. Evading it goes against policy and will result only in more blocks. Flounder fillet (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All that matters at AfD is whether the topic is notable, not who wrote the article or how good it is. And this one meets WP:GNG. Also look at the article on German Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't nominated for notability per se. I recommended for WP:TNT deletion and to be re-started from scratch at a later date if necessary due to the fact it was created by an AI driven account which has produced a demonstrated pattern of churning out fake sources and fake contents not supported by source. That account is now blocked for vandalism. Graywalls (talk) 20:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 05:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Contrary to the argument above by Necrothesp, copyright violation is a WP:DEL-REASON. Stockhausenfan (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's clearly a translation of the German Wikipedia article, the sections and wording are the same as well as the (dead) sources. Because of the notability: I went trough the sources and the only still existing third party sources are from rp-online.de and lokalkompass.de, which are regional newspapers and thus they are also reporting about things which are not notable for Wikipedia. So delete because of lack of notability and don't recreate except there are really reliable source which I don't think. And if anyone cares; in the German Wikipedia notability criteria per w:de:Wikipedia:Relevanzkriterien#Schulen every school in Germany is deemed notability without the need to prove that by even a single source, so that this article exists in the German Wikipedia is not a hint that it's really notable. Killarnee (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

edit

Religion Templates

edit


Atheism

edit

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit


Buddhism

edit

Kanja Odland

edit
Kanja Odland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Conatins no independent sourcing, and what I could find was a Dagens Nyheter interview, which is mostly about her school of Buddhism and contains scant info in Odland herself, and participation in a Sveriges Radio show on meditation practices in Sweden. Insufficient in-depth and independent coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited article to include independent sourcing. Article meets criteria for inclusion of a biographical person based on:
- Coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject (Dagens Nyheter, Sveriges Radio).
- Notability based on contribution to the enduring historical record in the field of Zen buddhism. Allllllice (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a bit short, but includes links to articles about Buddhism (eg Philip Kapleau which mentions Odland under the lineage section) and some acceptable references. I'm sure there are other sources that could be included. I recommend that the article is retained. Manbooferie (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

edit

Templates

edit

Miscellaneous

edit


Christianity

edit

Meramec Valley Christian School

edit
Meramec Valley Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any coverage that would indicate that this organization meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar Street (album)

edit
Trafalgar Street (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reference is an opinion piece and there aren't other sources for this album, the band's article itself is barely referenced and seems to be taken from a no longer active website. Smallangryplanet (talk) 08:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some improvements to the band's article. See WP:NEXIST on how to not condemn an article after looking at it just briefly. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calito Soul

edit
AfDs for this article:
Calito Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reads like WP:PROMO. No real sign of notability here. The concern here is mainly a WP:BLP1E concern which is visible in the lede of the article, which includes "mainly notable for". And I didn't find anything substantial that establishes GNG, and WP:SINGER so I nominate it for deletion.Pitille02 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 Those sources are not Wikipedia:Reliable sources reliable. Pitille02 (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are all used on the Spanish wikipedia article about him, so can you please explain why they are unreliable, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ Atlantic306 The item does not comply with WP:RS and does not comply with WP:SINGER. Pitille02 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific, what exactly is wrong with the sources ? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Observe the different templates about the sources inserted in the article, in some cases they mention that it is an article with original research/Autoblog. Pitille02 (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't explain specifically what is wrong with the three sources your argument is baseless, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 Please read WP:SINGER. Pitille02 (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSINGER is the same as WP:NMUSIC and criteria 1 is determined on the coverage in reliable sources so that is why I asked you to explain why those 3 websites are unreliable, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you find reliable sources you can provide them. Pitille02 (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a detailed analysis of the three sources, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306here, Critica, is that a journalistic medium? here This It is an Autoblog or Blog here and this is a Blog, 507 I cannot corroborate that it is a journalistic website and independent of the artist OR TRIVIAL. I also cannot corroborate that this is visible here. Pitille02 (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
, ok , i've changed to a weak keep pending the possibility of better sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306 Apache Ness presents the same problem, the sources are not visible or reliable, this is part of a network of questionable articles without notoriety WP:GNG. Pitille02 (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Durning

edit
Francis Durning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BIO1E the only reason this article exists is because of the allegations of sexual abuse: [2] no notability otherwise and coverage is more about the Catholic Church's role than Durning himself Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Brothers' College, Boksburg

edit
Christian Brothers' College, Boksburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs on the page for many years. I see some passing mentions in autobiographies and regurgitated PR in local media but nothing significant. I'd be interested to hear if anyone can find much else JMWt (talk) 07:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Deep as Sorrow

edit
Joy Deep as Sorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A former redirect that's been reverted back into an article. I tried a WP:BEFORE search, but got a page full of lists of the songs on the album. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jayson Sherlock

edit
Jayson Sherlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run of the mill everyday person that has played in a handful of bands with no particular suitable redirect target. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Current sourcing is stuff that can't be used for notability, like band's own page, facebook, youtube. Cannot tell if this guy passes any of the WP:NMUSICIAN checks either such as charting. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going to try and find sources for this guy. He was in one of the best-selling heavy metal bands in Australia, at the peak of their popularity, so there's probably stuff out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whelp. There's lots of stuff about the bands he's in/been in, but little about him. I suspect there's probably print mentions in magazines or newspapers, but that's going to be difficult to dig through.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless something establishes him notable for himself, I say he's not notable. This works the other way as well. An organization may be notable, but individual members (or groups of members) do not "inherit" notability due to their membership. from WP:INHERITORG Graywalls (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That's why I'm not counting that coverage of the bands he's been in, because that would be more appropriate for the requisite articles. I do see that an HM interview is referenced, but not cited, in the article. I'll try and see if I can access that. If it's an interview of "him", that would help towards individual notability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Provisional) Keep vote, because there's an HM interview with/profile of him in existence. It needs to be accessed and cited, but accessibility doesn't determine notability, the coverage need only *exist*.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Ah, it's accessible online: here it is--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:, found it. here I think interview with the subject can be used to verify information about the subject but obviously, words from the subject is not independent, so I question its value for conferring notability, which requires secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that he's covered in an interview by an independent reliable source would confer notability, but it's just one source.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anything else. HM mentioned back in 2008 that he doesn't do media appearances, so that one source might be all that there is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BANDMEMBER, he needs coverage about him specifically in order to be notable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can actually read what BANDMEMBER says and not tell us porkies. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability. Every band Sherlock has been in is definitely notable, no question. But, and I was surprised at this, so far it appears there's one source, mentioned above, that is about him specifically rather than a band he's part of. Horde was a one-man-band in studio, true, but that's technically separate and any info about that would be duplicated between the band article and this article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose that redirect. There are pages of search results with RS coverage about his work in Horde. Horde also was comprised solely of Sherlock for the studio recording. There is plenty of information about him that could go into that article if it was developed more. Plus, there's also a lot of coverage of Revulsed. And that's not to mention his work in Paramaecium (which he was a member of longer than Mortification) and Deliverance. There's too many significant bands that could be the target of a redirect. If one was to be prioritized, Horde would be the most reasonable, imo, because it was a solo project.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about del for now, but just create redirect later or discuss it in one one of the target page? It's not like it takes more than a few secs to make a redirect. Graywalls (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helaman Jeffs

edit
AfDs for this article:
Helaman Jeffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Renominating since the last discussion didn't attract much participation. There is no significant coverage at all of the subject. No SNGs apply. Notability is not inherited from family members. C F A 💬 22:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scars to Prove It

edit
Scars to Prove It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTAPOLICY. You should indicate why and how those policies were violated in the original nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I literally did that? Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV is clear, unambiguous and identifies the policies breached. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imago Amor

edit
Imago Amor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY requirements, specifically WP:NMUSIC; no WP:SIGCOV. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC) Add: The albums by Remedy Drive that I have nominated for deletion all failed to chart, and do not meet any criteria listed in WP:NALBUM (and I did not nominate articles by the band which had charted). Nor do they satisfy WP:SIGCOV - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Passing mention in genre music reviews was all I could find when doing WP:BEFORE, and that doesn't qualify. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 05:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of sources here would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit

Categories for discussion

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

Hinduism

edit

Categories

edit

Templates

edit

Miscellaneous

edit

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

edit


Islam

edit

World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan

edit
World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Talk:World's Largest Handmade Quran in Afghanistan#Requested move 29 October 2024, concerns were brought up regarding the notability of this topic in sources, specifically such a way to make it notable and not violate WP:NOTNEWS. In addition, trying to find an "official" name for this topic seemed to provide no results, and the claim that this is the "world's largest" without "in Afghanistan" was apparently disproven 2 years after the creation of this article's subject [3]. In a nutshell, there seems to be no references to illustrate that the subject of this article had encyclopedic notability that can withstand WP:GNG. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Myceteae: Ping participant of the move request. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support for deletion. I was the sole participant in the aforementioned RM discussion, besides the nominator, Steel1943. Our discussion reached a dead end due to a lack of ongoing coverage in English language sources establishing an appropriateWP:COMMONNAME or official name. Some English language sources revealed new record holder's for "world's largest [handmade] Quran," thus calling into question variations on the current descriptive title. Additionally, there are no Wikipedia articles in other languages for this topic. All of this raised the question of notability and led Steel1943 and I to pursue this AfD discussion. I would defer to other editors on the ultimate decision. I'm not familiar enough with the topic and related subject area to conclusively determine whether appropriate sources, in English or not, exist to establish notability.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelle of the Saracens

edit
Adelle of the Saracens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was quite excited to find this article - and ended up disappointed when I realized that despite its decent size, it does not refer to the subject once beyond the lead section. Of the three cited sources, two do not mention her at all, and the one that does seems to merely list her in an index. I found this book, which says: "Adelle was a physician active in Salerno. All we really know of her is that she was a lecturer at the Salerno Medical School." Indeed this is all the article said 10 years ago when it was created by Aciram, who likely thought that there was more about her somewhere. It seems, however, that nothing beyond these two sentences can be said about Adelle, and so there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose mentioning Adelle in the background section of the article women of Salerno, which is about Salernitan women physicians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe     Held by university libraries   Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy. ✘ No
Retsö, Jan (4 July 2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads     Held by university libraries   Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy. ✘ No
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia   ? Per WP:BRITANNICA, other sources are preferred.   Adelle is never mentioned. ✘ No
Ferraris, Z. A.; Ferraris, V. A. (December 1997). "The women of Salerno: contribution to the origins of surgery from medieval Italy"       Never mentions Adelle ✘ No
Kyle, Sarah R. (2016-08-12). Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua     Held in university libraries   Never mentions Adelle ✘ No
The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science     Held in university libraries   Barely mentions her ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement

edit
Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a very small political party that claims a few thousand members and has failed to get anyone elected to anything, securing 0.08% of the vote. Does not pass WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft. Incomplete text, add more headlines, history, steps of the movement, UzbukUdash (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point in draftifying an article on a non-notable topic, because no amount of editing will make it ready for mainspace. The issue isn’t the lack of headlines or detail. Quite the reverse - as it stands there is a lot of detail about a non-notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't get your pettyness, really. There is no clear rule on Wikipedia on the notability of political parties and there are literally countless examples of articles for parties of this extent on the encyclopedia, as I already argued on your talk page (but which you simply ignored; thanks for the "respectfulness" by the way). Anyways, if you can find a majority which supports the deletion of this article, I'd suggest making the text a subsection of the Kurdistan Islamic Movement, the party which the Kurdistan Islamic Relations Movement split from.--Ermanarich (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I responded politely to your message on my talk page. I just don't agree with you. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamophobic incidents

edit
List of Islamophobic incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since I nominated List of antisemitic incidents in the United States I should nominate this too, since it has the exact same problems.

Extremely, extremely broad and vague scope, with barely any quality control. Making this list anywhere close to comprehensive coverage of its baffling scope would be impossible, and would mostly contain low level news stories (as it does). If this was going to be a selection of notable pages (and changing it to that would require deleting 99% of the list) maybe, but the problem is in the title still: "Incident". Incident is so broad as to be useless, it can be anywhere from a terrorist attack to someone calling someone a mean word on the bus, this is a completely un manageable scope. Anti-Muslim terror acts or hate crimes targeted at mosques would likely meet NLIST, and if there is consensus to rescope to that we can, but that would also require nuking most of the page. Also, weasel words: "could be considered Islamophobic"? What? Also has WP:BLPCRIME concerns in that it accuses people of crimes without convictions. It also has WP:NOTNEWS issues, which is not inherently a problem for a list, but is a problem when it's based on an inherently POV and negative concept and one with a scope as vague and with as many possible entries as "incident" PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify - WP:SALAT indicates list articles should not be overly broad. This article probably could exist if the subsections were there own articles with relevant and useful selection criteria. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. Few of the arguments presented are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That would be helpful in future contributions to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

edit
Uşşaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion


Others


Judaism topics

edit

Wikipedia and antisemitism

edit
Wikipedia and antisemitism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A consensus to merge exists at the talk page, this AfD to confirm that it should be carried out. Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge While I respect and appreciate the efforts to improve the article and make it more neutral, I don't feel the article has the coherence to exist on its own. I don't feel many/any sources deal with the topic as a whole so as to give it notability so WP:COATRACK is a problem here, to quote the essay An article about some phenomenon might include multiple subsections, each of which is supposedly an example of the article's subject. If there is good sourcing that unifies all of these examples under one general topic, then that can be appropriate. I don't see the good sourcing unifying these examples, so would recommend inclusion in other articles such as Criticism of wikipedia or Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
In addition, the Holocaust Related Bias section, gives extremely extensive coverage to two papers which are actually not about antisemitism, but instead focus on the use of the holocaust by modern wikipedians of different nationalities. This is really interesting, but is not about antisemitism, it is about the way antisemitic atrocities of the past are framed to fit political agendas in Poland, Israel, Ukraine and Russia. Is this really within the scope of an article on antisemitism in wikipedia?Boynamedsue (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, that essay's idea of needing sources to unify examples doesn't have a basis in policy. It mentions WP:SYNTH, but that applies to statements, not compilations of statements. It also seems like most of Category:Criticisms would fail that essay's standard.
I'll need to look into that Holocaust content, but it sounds like an argument for trimming some content which isn't that central to the article. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that in this case we are doing quite a lot of legwork to editorially select what might constitute antisemitism. I really think the whole Israel section doesn't belong for example. The criticism of wikipedia article is quite clear on what should go in it, so we can be fairly safe in adding it, but the title here is not.
The stuff in the two framing articles is mostly unbiased, but it would fit better in the article on Ideological bias in Wikipedia.Boynamedsue (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I would support trimming any content that sources do not link to claims of antisemitism. Some of that has already been done but there may be a bit more trimming to do. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or draftify - it clearly meets WP:GNG, but the article is young, its scope is still evolving, there's an open naming discussion, and there are various issues which are being worked on. The proposer and closer of the merge had agreed to allow a bit more time before an AfD. I'd prefer even more time, so draftification might be appropriate. That would avoid sniping the article before it has a chance to develop, while also avoiding unfixed issues in mainspace. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close This is out of process. The move discussion on the page is also out of process. Just close the merge discussion and then let's see where it goes. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The merge discussion was on the wrong page, but I don't think that's enough to throw away a strong consensus and say "do it all again".Boynamedsue (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No the merge discussion is fine. It is the move discussion, started today despite an extant merge discussion, that is out of process. I'll post to AN and see if we can get an admin to close the merge. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close: Articles for Deletion is not for merger discussions. If there is consensus on the talk page, then an uninvolved editor should close the discussion and carry out the merge. C F A 💬 21:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's admittedly a messy situation, but my request to the closer would be to treat this as a deletion request -
    • I argued for a conversion from a merge to AfD, based on the practical effect of the action.
    • The merge proposer & closer later agreed to switch to AfD. They planned to file tomorrow, but were preempted with this unusual "merge AfD".
    • ProfGray already added summary content in the proposed destination, so the status quo is essentially a parent-child setup. We can't really fit more content there (already borderline WP:TOOBIG), so a merge probably wouldn't result in any actual merging. Effectively we're just deciding on deletion now.
    If you or Nyttend have opinions regarding deletion (as if this were a standard AfD), it might be useful to know, in the event that the closer does end up evaluating this as a deletion request. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Judaism, and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural background. The proposer closed the Merge discussion on Oct 30th. I requested that the Merge be kept open and more time be given for improvements. On Oct 31, the proposer agreed in the edit summary: "Unclosing discussion. I will AfD the article in 4 days." Those four days would end tomorrow, Monday, at 22:38 pm Eastern. Fwiw, the original merge discussion had most comments before Oct 31. Since that time, there have been ~ 145 edits by 12 users, including substantive additions based on added reliable sources. ProfGray (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic. Nonwithstanding possible rename options which are OK. Andre🚐 22:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already agreement on the talk page that the current title is not even a topic. There is no agreement on an alternative title and no agreement on the article scope, never mind any other problems. Selfstudier (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep aside from possible orignial research, I believe the article demonstrated enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. I have no comment regarding the proposed merge; that should be dealt on its substituent talk page. Takipoint123 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sikhism

edit

First Sikh State

edit
First Sikh State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POVFORK of the content already mentioned on Banda Singh Bahadur. Scholarly sources don't really support the notion of a "first Sikh state". Ratnahastin (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mahal, Bhupinder Singh (2013-09-01). The Making of the Sikh Empire: The Role of Banda Bahadur and the Misls. Mahal Publications. ISBN 978-0-9686736-1-4.
  2. ^ Sagoo, Harbans Kaur (2001). Banda Singh Bahadur and Sikh Sovereignty. Deep & Deep Publications. ISBN 978-81-7629-300-6.
  3. ^ Dhillon, Harish (2013-05-01). First Raj of the Sikhs: The Life and Times of Banda Singh Bahadur. Hay House, Inc. ISBN 978-93-81398-39-5.
  4. ^ "Khalsa Raj Da Bani Banda Singh Bahadur - SikhBookClub". sikhbookclub.com. Retrieved 2024-11-03.
  5. ^ "Banda's march got first Khalsa Raj". The Times of India. 2010-05-11. ISSN 0971-8257. Retrieved 2024-11-03.

Giani Raghbir Singh

edit
Giani Raghbir Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giani Harpreet Singh

edit
Giani Harpreet Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources provide only routine coverage to this individual which is no different than WP:NOTNEWS. Many other Jathedars of Akal Takht also don't have separate articles. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the page- Most of the jathedar has wikipedia pages and He remained the head of Akal Takht the highest seat of Sikh Community. Wikiravidas (talk) 00:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion&oldid=1255399857"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy