Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove 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]

Sons of the Covenant Monastery[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The article is predominantly reliant upon primary sources. It is also not clear as to whether the monastery relates to the structure, which fails the requirements of WP:NBUILDING or the religious order, which fails WP:NORG. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Iraq, and California. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego#Monasteries, convents and seminaries. I found nothing in NewspaperArchive.com via WP:TWL, and the local newspaper for El Cajon, California doesn't have anything obvious online (though I doubt that they have older papers online). Searching is difficult because the literal translation of the much larger organization, B'nai B'rith, is the same as the name of this monastery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford[edit]

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cardus Education Survey Canada[edit]

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

Came across the article on the Christian think tank Cardus today, which appears to be the result of WP:UPE. I stubified that rather than nominate it for deletion because it looks like there's enough out there for WP:ORG. But that led me to this, a long article on one of Cardus's reports, again with no good independent sourcing at all (but a whole lot of text). Wouldn't be surprised if this were UPE too. In any event, if there's a little bit of coverage it can be summarized in the main article. WP:GNG fail here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Education, Religion, and Canada. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Cardus, or possibly redirect. This is far too much detail for an article about a report that doesn't have any secondary sources about the report (just sources about Cardus, or Cardus's funding). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, relies almost exclusively on the report itself. Toadspike [Talk] 10:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber K[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article is a BLP of a non-notable author, references are self-published sources inc Facebook. No particular claim of notability, says she's exec director of some company but that's not immediately verifiable from their home page. She taught some courses at some organisations, that seems to be about it. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Religion, Paganism, Illinois, and Wisconsin. -- D'n'B-t -- 17:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep, see amazon link

https://www.amazon.com/stores/Amber-K/author/B0958H3NY3?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true

I have her Covencraft on my shelf.

I have no idea who you think you are when a simple google search can confirm

A)who she is

B)what books she wrote.

I say we nominate your account for deletion Timknit (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can write a book, we need confirmation of critical reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Timknit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, I can't find book reviews. I don't see anything other than books for sale on the usual platforms. Nothing for biographical notability as I can't find articles about this individual either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep: The page is in need of expansion and updating, not deletion. Amber K has writing books since the 1980s, the selection listed on the page is incomplete, as a cursory search for "Almber K bibliography" will indicate. Reviews of her books are likewise easily found on reviews sites, such as Goodreads, and her publisher's official sites as well. Ardantane, her "some company", is an independent, registered 501c3 non-profit corporation established in 1996 in the state of New Mexico and is one of the few Nationally recognized Pagan Schools in the United States. She is also a former First Officer (President) of Covenant of the Goddess (COG), an international organization of Wicca and Witchraft covens and practitioners, whih was founded in 1975. Amber K is also the originator of COG's Youth Service Award "The Hart and Crescent", which was originally designed for those in Scouting, may be earned by youth who are not Scouts as well.

When I have time, I will work on improving the article, provided that it is kept.

(POV: As an aside, I find it questionable that a new Wikipedian's earliest activities on the platform are to suggest articles for deletion.) Ashareem (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice the Goodreads reviews but I don't belive user generated content counts towards notability any more than the period of time over which books were written or the particular tax registration of a given organisation. -- D'n'B-t -- 10:47, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User-generated content can't be used for notability; that's part of the issue, can't seem to find any critical reviews in sites that aren't blogs or user-generated sites Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass AUTHOR, also failed WP:GNG. Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe she is more notable as a religious leader rather than an author? There's a 1993 Santa Fe New Mexican article (page 1, page 2) on the reaction of her local community to her work; a 2003 article (page 1, page 2) in the Albuquerque Journal on how she helped found a pagan learning center, Ardantane; a 2008 interview in the Santa Fe Reporter; and coverage of a ceremony in 2022 from The Santa Fe New Mexican (alternate link). There's also some info on her on in the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft (Llewellyn Worldwide, 2000) by Raven Grimassi – see pages 9, 10, 19, and 246. Maybe someone else can find more coverage, given this history? Best, Bridget (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, maybe. I think some of that is a little letter-to-the-editor type of routine coverage, so I'd like to see something a bit more distant from the subject, but I could be convinced in that direction. -- D'n'B-t -- 19:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DandelionAndBurdock: There were some correspondences, like letter to the editors, in newspapers in New Mexico and Wisconsin, but these aren't. After searching a bit more I found this article that briefly mentions she was elected leader (National First Officer) of Covenant of the Goddess in 1985. She contributed to Spiritual Parenting in the New Age (The Crossing Press, 1989), which was reviewed in the New York Daily News among other outlets. Bridget (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly brought up sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what happened. IMO writing those notable books may meet NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources Bridget provides above are intriguing examples of third party coverage. There definitely does not appear to be a lot of third party coverage (hence "weak keep"), but some does exist. Malinaccier (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions[edit]

Religion Templates[edit]

Atheism[edit]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Buddhism[edit]

Kyogaku shiken[edit]

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

Raoul mishima (talk · contribs) attempted to nominate this article for deletion, but managed to {{subst:afd2}} directly onto the log page instead of creating a subpage and transcluding it (and did not tag the article either). Their rationale follows:

I'm not sure I understand this article, but I'm sure it is not encyclopedic et does not belong here.

This is purely a procedural nomination to clean up a malformatted attempt; I offer no opinion or comment of my own. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Buddhism and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

Christianity[edit]

Jonas Pilling[edit]

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

The justification for this subject having an article is the long-running dispute between him and his parishioners, which did attract some attention from local press at the time, but it seems that much of this content could simply be rolled into the article on St Mark's Church, Huddersfield, where he was the vicar for a number of years. It is not clear to me why Pilling himself needs an article of his own. Leonstojka (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The substance of the article is bigger than Pilling himself, but he is the vehicle for the publication of that substance, because he was the subject of the event concerned. For whatever reason, he was unable to fulfil his task as a vicar in one of the most terribly deprived areas of England at the time. When the Bishop did not appear to be doing anything about this tragedy for the local poor, the local newspaper said sadly that there was much work to do (for the poor and deprived). The fact is, the Bishop left it far too long before resolving the issue for the local congregation. To understand what happened, we need the full story (as far as we can know it) of Pilling. We cannot surmise, speculate or give opinion, but what we can do is give all the facts and give the reader a chance to get a full idea of what happened. In order to give all the facts, we need the full article on Pilling. To put the whole Pilling article into the church article would be to overwhelm the latter. Besides all that, the Pilling article is in itself an interesting study on how the Anglican church dealt (or didn't deal at all) with inadequate and/or suffering priests. In this case at least, the Bishop just let it be.

Since the severe problems began in 1905, we cannot blame the interruption of World War I for the bishop's lack of action. We cannot know why the bishop behaved like that, or exactly why Pilling behaved like that, but as the article stands, we can at least look at the facts. And the facts are important for the history of Huddersfield, for the history of the church, for the history of Anglican priests, and for the history of Pilling himself. Not all Wikipedia articles have to be about heroes and success stories. Sometimes we can learn from the mistakes of the past. One thing for sure: we should not shut our eyes to what happened in Huddersfield in Pilling's time, and nor should we actively try to minimise its importance by deleting the article and shrinking it to fit into a dusty corner of another article.. Storye book (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think some attention from local press understates it a bit. This unusual dispute received coverage in papers across the UK over a period of years - e.g. the article quotes reports in the Aberdeen Journal and The Cornishman, which certainly aren't local to Huddersfield. Merging it into the article about the church itself would make that article rather long and unbalanced. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Sunter[edit]

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

Don't see how this individual is notable enough for a page, both in the general sense and in the parameters for which clerics are notable. Much of the article is unreferenced, and some of the sources at the bottom are only brief mentions. One actually focuses on the son of the subject. Leonstojka (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Christianity, England, and Australia. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traders Point Christian Church[edit]

(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]

Babylon Mystery Religion[edit]

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

Not remotely notable. The only sources I could find covering these are primary sources, which don't really fulfill the notability guidelines. Additionally, the guidelines for books can't save the article as it hasn't won any awards or got any reviews. OhHaiMark (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Paganism, and United States of America. OhHaiMark (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Garding, Valerie (1981-09-05). "Expose of 'doctrines of demons'". Red Deer Advocate. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Here is a shocking book: an expose of the "doctrines of demons," that have crept into our churches unaware. The number and prevalence of them is so high, I can't begin to discuss these departures from truth here. Without the adequate background of historical fact which the author provides, his claims would appear outrageous. For those who are eager seekers for truth; for those of every denomination and religion who really want to know, I recommend this book. The facts it presents—well documented by Christian and Secular sources alike demand examination."
2. Keating, Karl (1988). Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians". San Francisco: Ignatius Press. pp. 159–162. ISBN 0-89870-177-5. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion does not have much to say about sex; it is not prurient in the most common connotation of the word. It is prurient according to the other dictionary definition in that it satisfies restless cravings many people have. They want to believe there is a dark secret to Catholicism, and they want to be let in on the secret. They want to luxuriate in horror stories, and they want their worst suspicions confirmed. Woodrow's book shows that Catholicism's success has been due not to its merits, but to influence-peddling, fortuitous events, and underhanded dealings, even violence. It demonstrates that Catholicism is really something dark and alien to Christianity—something, in fact, connected with Christianity only tangentially, not essentially. Woodrow's thesis, which is not new to him, is that Catholicism's distinctive elements have not been derived from authentic Christianity. They are not legitimate developments, but wholesale borrowings from pre-Christian cults."
  The book notes: "Babylon Mystery Religion is indebted to Alexander Hislop's The Two Babylons, first published in 1853 and reprinted innumerable times since. In fact, Woodrow's book would not be described wrongly as a revised version of Hislop's. The argument is that things that distinguish Catholicism from Protestantism—such as the papacy, intercession of the saints, and purgatory—are really borrowings from ancient pagan religions. With sketches, photographs, woodcuts, and a host of one-liners, Woodrow attempts to show this. From Egyptian devotion to Isis, the reader is told, comes Catholic devotion to Mary, and from Buddhism comes the sign of the Cross. St. Bridget never existed, but was merely a replacement for a fertility goddess."
3. Olson, Carl E. (2003). Will Catholics Be Left Behind: A Critique of the Rapture and Today's Prophecy Preachers. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. p. 63. ISBN 0-89870-950-4. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes in a footnote: "Perhaps the most damning indictment of Hislop's The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife (originally written in 1853–1858) is Ralph Woodrow's The Babylon Connection? (Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1997). In 1966 Woodrow wrote Babylon Mystery Religion Ancient and Modern (Riverside, Calif.: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1966), a reworking of Hislop's book. After some time passed, Woodrow did further study and saw that Hislop's book was seriously flawed and historically untenable. "As I [studied]," Woodrow admits, "it became clear—Hislop's 'history' was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities—why anything could be 'proved'!" (from www.amazon.com). Woodrow then wrote The Babylon Connection? and admitted the errors of his first book. For a Catholic critique of both Hislop and Woodrow see Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), pp. 68–69, 159–63, 219–24."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Price, Robert M. (2007). The Paperback Apocalypse: How the Christian Church Was Left Behind. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. p. 281. ISBN 978-1-59102-583-2. Retrieved 2024-06-06 – via Internet Archive.
    The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "More than likely, Jenkins got the name from the title of an old, rabidly anti-Catholic book, Ralph Woodrow's Babylon Mystery Religion (1966)."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Babylon Mystery Religion to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Cunard's sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cunard. Sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVTN-LD[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Craig Considine (academic)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [1], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [2]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Hansford[edit]

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

Most of the sources are not in-depth or are primary. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No inherent notability in his position. Where are the sources to meet WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not bullying, merely pointing out that all biographies need sources to meet WP:BIO, which you have failed to do. LibStar (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Communion of Western Orthodox Churches[edit]

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

The only independent source given, Thöle, only mentions the CWOC in passing. I can't find any source that actually covers their activities. There's no evidence that this communion is more than a loose agreement of three small like-minded denominations. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Leefeni^{aures audiendi audiat} 21:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Europe, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Article has been PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While autocephalic churches in communion with a significant church are almost always notable national branches of a church located outside that church's home country, this does not appear to be the situation for the "communion" among the three churches that are the subject of this article.[3] I would consider changing my vote if independent sources were found or the significant concepts and French sources were explained and verified. Ben Azura (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hart and Shepard[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 21:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, Christianity, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Harvard magazine article and Union Leader newspaper article already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While Harvard magazine and a single article in the Union Leader may be reliable for use in verifying facts, just those two citations together are insufficient for establishing notability. The two publications would appear to not have the circulation/audience necessary to demonstrate notability beyond a small region or special interest niche. The citations do not show that Hart and Shepard is anything close to a household name. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - anything from that period that is even being discussed today in magazine articles is surely noteworthy. An additional source: the "famous Dorothy cloak" made by Hart and Shepard is held by the Shaker Museum, and is discussed in Beverly Gordon's 1990 research paper "Victorian Fancy Goods: Another Reappraisal of Shaker Material Culture". A different take is provided by Antiques and the Arts ("Smalls Bring Big Prices At Willis Henry Shaker Sale" of 4 December 2007) which notes the high prices fetched by the cloaks. I am certain there are numerous other such sources that credibly establish the importance of this brand, back in its heyday. And "Once notable, always notable". Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those article provide in-depth information about the *company* (which is the topic we're looking at here), they all discuss the cloak. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dorothy Durgin. An article on the "Dorothy Cloak" or the "Shaker Cloak" would appear to meet GNG as a standalone topic, but a topic on this organization/company fails GNG/WP:NCORP and therefore a Delete is in order. A search on Google Books for "Dorothy Cloak" provides lots of suitable references. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete, per HighKing. Fails NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 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[edit]

(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]

Shiva (TV series)[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:00, 5 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 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Hinduism, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Shiva aired on both Nickelodeon and Nickelodeon Sonic channels, and it is also digitally available on JioCinema. Therefore, redirecting it to Nickelodeon Sonic programming list might not be appropriate. M S Hassan (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. True. But it was originally broadcast on N. Sonic and N. only. And the latter does not list the series, whereas the NSonic list does (and the first is a part of the latter, fwiw). If you find a better target (Viacom 18?), consider I agree. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to delete it rather than redirect it to another article. M S Hassan (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I'll stand by my redirect and target then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series. If Viacom18 page had list of shows it produced, I would have redirected it there. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samadhi of Bodhendra Saraswathi[edit]

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

The tomb lacks wide coverage in RS. Most of the text is covered in Bodhendra Saraswathi, whose tomb the subject is. The article has little information on the architecture of the tomb, but rather concentrates more on Bodhendra and his death Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Hinduism, and India. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bodhendra Saraswathi. Mccapra (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . One source that is poor and fails verification. Page fails WP:GNG. I would not even consider to Direct the page to Bodhendra Saraswathi as that too is poorly sourced and should be nominated for deletion. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)[edit]

Islam[edit]

Muhammad Abdul Malek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a single source used in this article is reliable which can establish notability of the person. - AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Bangladesh. AlbeitPK (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indo–Turkic people[edit]

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

WP:OR article with no WP:RS to back it up. The previous citations were either not WP:RS (random websites) or were misused, not even mentioning the name "Indo-Turk(s)/Indo-Turkic". Couldn't find any WP:RS on these "people" either. HistoryofIran (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, Central Asia, India, Russia, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A11. Mccapra (talk) 04:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reviewed older version of the page before all sources were removed. Per nom, some sources were poor and others were misused as these had no mention on Indo-Turkic people but some brief about Indians and Turkish connection and interaction because of Sufism. Page fails WP:GNG and is a WP:SYNTH. RangersRus (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Abbas Ali Shihab Thangal[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions or don't mention subject. Can't find anything on Google/news about him. C F A 💬 02:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Islam, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep proved WP:GNG and WP:NPOL,He is a community leader, a politician who holds positions, As such, he belongs to the category of a Sayyid of major denominations have generally been held to be notable ~~ User:Spworld2 (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most definitely does not pass GNG. This is exactly the sort of BLP our policies are intended to prevent. It’s essentially a promotional profile for a party official based on passing mentions and his relationships with people who are actually notable in our terms. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Craig Considine (academic)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for WP:PROF notability, and his Google Scholar profile has only one publication with significant citations [4], so that leaves WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [5]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with WP:NACADEMIC, it doesn't seem to me that the related criteria are met. While the existence of reviews in the Wall Street Journal and Middle East Monitor are possibly contributory, I'm not sure (on their own) they reach the thresholds expected by criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff in Aug 2021.)
Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of WP:NACADEMIC as "frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." (See The Independent, New Indian Express, IBTimes, and Gulf News.) I think it could also plausibly justify WP:GNG with the WP:SIGCOV in the Houston Chronicle, Needham Times, and the discussion of his broader work in the WSJ review. Meanwhile, People of the Book would qualify as a notable WP:NBOOK on the basis of its reviews in two reliable source outlets. (Middle East Monitor is not such an outlet.) That said, this article is still overloaded with primary sources, unreliable sources, affiliated sources and needs substantial work to improve it -- but deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jami al-Kamil[edit]

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

I don’t think this book is notable as it lacks in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. I tried redirecting to the article about its author but was reverted so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. Mccapra (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is first ever complete collection of Sahih hadith. The article is important. ^[1]59.152.2.172 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that link is dead and it’s not clear what you mean by “the first ever complete collection of sahih hadith.” There have been several much earlier authoritative collections. This sounds like it’s just a mashup of those. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see this video, it will make it clear, https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=263pYfjjZHWouyJ1&v=gHmB5LG1JxU&feature=youtu.be. 59.152.2.172 (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok but that’s not an independent source. I’m looking for in-depth coverage of this book by independent reviewers or commentators. Mccapra (talk) 00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

" Although Professor Azmi has authored dozens of books on various important Islamic topics, his voluminous compilation of authentic Hadith titled “Al-Jami’ al-Kamil fi al-Hadith al-Sahih al-Shamil” is considered the most important. It is one of the most comprehensive books on Hadith by a single scholar since the dawn of Islam. Azmi has taken pain to collect the authentic Hadiths dispersed in numerous classical books. It is made up of more than 20 volumes, containing about 16,000 Hadiths dealing with various issues such as creeds, rulings, worship, biography of the Prophet (peace be upon him), chapters of jursiprudence, interpretation of the Glorious Qur’an and many more. Azmi will be remembered for this great service like those earlier compilers of Hadiths collections such as Imam Bukhari, Imam Mslim, Abu Dawood, At-Tirmidhi, Imam al-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah and Imam Malik."^[2]

"The once Hindu youth Banke Lal and today's Sheikh Ziaur Rahman Azmi have done many important and significant works. 'Al Jamiul Kamil Fil Hadees Sahihis Shamil' is one of his most important books. Many learned hadith scholars and Muslim scholars say that this book can be called the only book in the history of the last 1400 years, where only authentic hadiths have been placed without any repetition. 16 thousand hadiths have been compiled in this hadith book. Shaikh Ziaur Rahman Ajmer has spent 15 years of work in this. He has taken the help of more than 200 hadith books in this large work of 20 volumes."^[3] 59.152.2.172 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most pure hadith book in the world after the Quran. Md Joni Hossain (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are fanboy comments not policy-based arguments for keeping. Which genuinely independent sources agree with this assessment? Mccapra (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra - You have a preconceived agenda to delete this Wikipedia page. First you deleted the page unilaterally. Then when it was restored, you try to delete it by organising a vote...and then when you couldn't achieve a consensus, you trash dissent as "fanboy" comments.

You are abusing your position as an editor.

To the substantive. This is the first time - or at any rate - amongst a handful of attempts to compile a comprehensive statement of the sunnah/hadiths. It is an historic achievement. Like all achievements, it will take time to become prominent in an identical way that the now canonical texts like Sahih al-Bukhari took decades to become canonised (see Prof. Jonathan Brown: https://drjonathanbrown.com/books/the-canonization-of-al-bukhari-and-muslim/ ). What you are doing is effectively deleting Sahih al-Bukhari because immediately after publication there were not a slew of peer-reviewed academic journals discussing it! The author died two years after publishing the second edition, this also contributed to the lack of fanfare publicity. That is not a reason to delete.

As for sources, there are some. There could be more. But Wikipedia would be a fraction of its size if every single page required a welter of peer-reviewed articles.

As for al-jami al-kamil's significance, two of the most prominent Islamic academics and missionaries have showered praise on the work:

- Dr Yasir Qadhi - Yale Phd, Medina Munawara Masters. Author and academic [see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2ZI_ykyv8o ]

- Dr Zakir Naik - Author of dozens of Islamic books and missionary with tens of millions of views. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR1rkq8vs0o ]

This alone is sufficient to establish the work merits a Wikipedia page.

To be clear: A Wikipedia entry does not require readers to agree with an academic work or project. You evidently are desperate to efface it. But your personal views must not be allowed to dictate what information exists to the world.

You are trying to censor information - dismissing opponents as "fanboys". This is not befitting of a Wikipedia Editor.

Do NOT delete. EdKolank (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Please see WP:NBOOK. How does this work meet these criteria? Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 5 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!} 23:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can only find links to read the book, nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The most pure hadith book in the world after the Quran. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this article needs to have numerous tags retained for cleanup and improvement, and more sources would help. In spite of this, several low reliability sources appear to exist, though improved reliability source would be welcome.Iljhgtn (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low level reliability sources do indeed exist. That is the problem. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is the most comprehensive compilation of the Prophet's sayings. Salah Almhamdi (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide three reliable independent sources that confirm this? Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ড. মুহাম্মাদ জিয়াউর রহমান আজমি (রহ.) যেভাবে বিশ্বে খ্যাতি লাভ করলেন ভারতীয় নওমুসলিম আলেম". Kaler Kantho. 11 August 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2024. ) # Azmi, Zakir (3 March 2017). "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. Retrieved 27 December 2021. # "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019. #media, news and (31 July 2020). "Indian-Hindu Brahmin who became Islam's Hadith Scholar dies in Saudi Arabia". Etemaad Daily. Retrieved 30 May 2024. #Khalid Hossain, A F M (6 September 2021). "'গঙ্গা থেকে জমজম'-এর লেখক কালজয়ী এক প্রতিভা". Daily Naya Diganta (in Bengali). Retrieved 30 May 2024. #"پروفیسر ضیاء الرحمٰن اعظمیؒ کی رحلت". Daily Jang. 18 August 2020. Retrieved 6 June 2024. # Azmi, Muhammad Khalid (September 2020). گنگا سے زم زم تک کا روحانی و علمی سفر [The Spiritual and Academic Journey from the Ganges to the Zamzam] (in Urdu). New Delhi: Al-Manar Publishing House. # Siddiqi, Irfan (September 2020). "بلریاگنج سے جنت البقیع تک" [From Bilariaganj to the Jannat al-Baqi']. Urdu Digest (in Urdu). 60 (9). Lahore: 41–53. Retrieved 27 December 2021. all these independent sources confirm this infotmation that this book is the most comprehensive collection of Sahih hadith till now. 202.134.13.134 (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Every single one of these is not in-depth coverage of the book at all, it is coverage about the author. This is the reason I redirected the article about the book to the article about the author. There is no question in my mind that the author is notable for Wikipedia purposes, not primarily as the author of this book, but as a convert with an unusual life story who has devoted his life to scholarship. Not a single one of these sources meets the requirements of WP:BOOK as it is not in depth coverage of the book. Also extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Getting a favourable mention from a newspaper journalist is not that hard, but if you’re maintaining that this is the most pure Hadith book in the world after the Quran, I’d expect that to be supported by an authority such as the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, one or more Grand Muftis, one or more Ministers of Religious Affairs in a Muslim majority country, or one of the representative bodies of Muslims in non-Muslim countries. In fact there are no such sources which mean that this claim is not generally recognised. Mccapra (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Above discussion, This article contain good sources. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 10:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doms in Jordan[edit]

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

This is should rather remain a redirect to Romani diaspora#Jordan or anything related as there's nothing exactly notable about "Doms in Jordan" obviously, because since the original redirect was removed there haven't been any establishment of WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Islam, and Jordan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a weird one, where the sources make clear that that the subject passes GNG (four solid articles, including the Christian Science Monitor, specifically covering the situation of Doms in Jordan!), but the article (like Doms in Lebanon and Doms in Israel) being so short it feels like it should just be redirected to a bigger page. But in the spirit of WP:DINC, my !vote is to keep and expand/improve. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is too short to be a stand-alone article; the best solution would be to merge this with articles like Doms in Lebanon. If there isn't a new article, Dom people seems better than a redirect to Romani diaspora. Walsh90210 (talk) 20:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Length of the article isn't the standard for deletion; it's the availability and quality of sourcing. I believe the existing sourcing supports notability of this specific topic. We'd only merge/redirect this if it there weren't enough secondary, reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 3 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]

Camp Tel Chai[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror. Fails WP:NORG, no WP:SIGCOV, no WP:GNG. Both cited sources are WP:SPS that do not establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and Illinois. Longhornsg (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what's written above. Redirect is the best option given the circumstances. MaskedSinger (talk) 08:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Amal[edit]

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

Redirect to Habonim Dror, merging what's encyclopedic. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for an otherwise non-notable summer camp. Both sources provided are WP:SPS and do not support WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. Longhornsg (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camp JCA Shalom[edit]

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

Redirect to Jewish summer camp. Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV of otherwise non-notable summer camp. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Judaism, United States of America, and California. Longhornsg (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism in Australia[edit]

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

Delete. This article is basically a summary verison of History of the Jews in Australia. Both articles are basically talking about the same thing but one is more detailed. The list can be moved to Australian Jews and also incorporated into List of Oceanian Jews. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this is more of a merge and redirect than an outright deletion case. BD2412 T 23:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412, if that is the best approach, I would agree with merge and redirect. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of the Jews in Australia I agree that the two titles essentially refer to the same topic. Perhaps merging the History and Demographics sections, then keeping the People section and renaming the article to something like "List of notable Jewish Australians" could be on the cards, which can also be section merged from List of Oceanian Jews#Australia. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and redirect per the arguments, no strict preference on the title FortunateSons (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Rockower Award[edit]

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

Merge into American Jewish Press Association. WP:NOTDIRECTORY, no WP:SIGCOV. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Judaism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I agree with the proposal. Simon Rockower should be merged into American Jewish Press Association, and then converted into a redirect.
Eric Schucht (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schleicher[edit]

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

There is already a draft for this that has been rejected a few times. Pretty sure the author of the draft got tired and moved it to mainspace with no concensus. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was wrong. Turns out that the author of the draft is different than the user that created the page. The person who created the page has been not warned however has created NUMEROUS speedily deleted articles through copyright. Assuming that the user that created the page just wanted to seem like the one who created it, even though they very obviously copied from the draft- which still exists, by the way. 48JCL ^(talk) 22:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I copied from the draft. This guy already has articles in Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and Galician (?!), so I don't understand why there are issues with the English version. This is an obviously notable Jewish painter; Wikipedia has used many of his paintings across a few articles, such as on the Talmud. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Then just resubmit it, if you think it is "obviously notable" 48JCL^TALK 11:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanbas Your argument is a different version of WP:WAX. Look at Draft:Nahal Rafiah. Just because it has a Hebrew version does not immediately make it notable. 48JCL^TALK 11:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally ignore Wikipedia essays and only follow the policies and guidelines, so I do not accept the premises behind WP:WAX. I agree with you that an article existing in just one other language does not make it notable; however, I get a feeling that this article about Carl Schleicher would exist without any issues in *every other language* except in English. Maybe the original creator of the draft had a poor first draft which attracted (now undue) attention? Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Judaism, Austria, Italy, and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, why do you think he is non-notable? FortunateSons (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I am putting this for AfD is because it is completely stolen from a draft. Also, wouldn’t it still be in draftspace, as that draft was rejected twice and never touched again? 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons 48JCL^TALK 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@48JCL, I'm not sure on the specific policy implications. However, I don't think we should delete an article about a notable person if it is avoidable. Do you happen to know what the policy on this sort of thing is? FortunateSons (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the comments left by the reviewer:

Comment: This draft, as written, does not appear to indicate that one of the biographical notability criteria is satisfied. If one of the criteria is satisfied, please revise this draft appropriately, with a reliable source, if necessary stating on the talk page or in AFC comments which criterion is met, and resubmit. It is the responsibility of the submitter to show that a subject satisfies a notability criterion. You may ask for advice about the biographical notability criteria at the Teahouse. In particular, see and refer to WP:NARTIST for notability, which is the guideline that the subject should be evaluated against. Where are his works on display? What has been written about him by art critics? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where are his works on display? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been moved back from article space to draft space. Please read the comments by the draftifying reviewer and address them. Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. If you do not understand why this article was sent back to draft space, please ask the reviewer rather than simply resubmitting. You may ask for advice on how to improve this draft at the Teahouse or on the talk pages of any of the reviewers. (The declining reviewers may advise you to ask for advice at the Teahouse.) If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement, it will probably be rejected. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL^TALK 11:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That provides context, but unfortunately does not answer any of my questions? FortunateSons (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FortunateSons It could be notable who knows? But all the real sources providing notability like BBC are dead links. The references are formatted very sloppily. Using ref tags to make Efns is definitely not something a normal person would do. 48JCL^TALK 03:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article is less than great, agreed so far. However, being in significant need of improvement is not a deletion criteria.

The dead BBC links are a problem, and I couldn’t find an archived one, so this probably does not meet notability criteria now. FortunateSons (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Argument has been very messy thus far, would appreciate some clear comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 09:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Pontremoli[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BASIC C F A 💬 02:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Judaism, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment could you elaborate on why none of the sources meet BASIC in your opinion? FortunateSons (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the biography in Educational Institutions Pamphlets (which is actually a 1950 L'Ecole National D'Administration book) plus short mentions in La Rabia De La Expresion, Le conseil d'état et le régime de Vichy", and the State Council plaque should be sufficient for WP:NBASIC. There are other short mentions, perhaps some longer ones, on GScholar. Oblivy (talk) 02:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism[edit]

Miscellaneous[edit]

^ الحي, عيسى بن عبد الله بن عيسى العبد (1 January 2023). اختيارات الإمام الطرطوشي في قضايا السياسة الشرعية (in Arabic). Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmiyah دار الكتب العلمية. ISBN 978-614-496-201-5. Retrieved 28 May 2024.
^ "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. 3 March 2017.
^ "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019.

[1] الحي, عيسى بن عبد الله بن عيسى العبد (1 January 2023). اختيارات الإمام الطرطوشي في قضايا السياسة الشرعية (in Arabic). Dar Al Kotob Al Ilmiyah دار الكتب العلمية. ISBN 978-614-496-201-5. Retrieved 28 May 2024.

[2] "Journey from Hinduism to Islam to professor of Hadith in Madinah". Saudi Gazette. 3 March 2017.

[3] "অমুসলিম পরিবার থেকে হাদিস বিশারদ!". banglanews24.com (in Bengali). 25 January 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]