Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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]

Easter in the Balkans

[edit]
Easter in the Balkans (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 a lot like AI slop with many weasel words and is very similar to the Romanian article that is also being AfD'ed. It also incorporates AI images. Laura240406 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is clearly WP:CGC for the purpose of edit farming. This could also fall under WP:U5, in which case the editor should be blocked from editing. JTZegers (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how can you be so sure it's an AI creation? Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks like an AI slop job, with pictures and all. JTZegers (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
btw the author's response also sounds very much AI generated and includes a lot of en dashes in a way that ChatGPT allegedly uses them Laura240406 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili

[edit]
2025 papal conclave papabili (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)

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.
And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope
kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.Tvx1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?
kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is a solid article on candidates, one which holds its place among articles on the Catholic Church. Although a merger back into the 2025 papal conclave wouldn't be that harmful, this is a good standard to set on candidates for Pope, and I would love to see even more detail here. It could even be expanded in the future, with historical detail. PickleG13 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2025 papal conclave. Short=term info, e.g. election candidates, horses, is trivial after the event. WP:EVENT has relevant issues.

Pujniya Raseshwari Devi

[edit]
Pujniya Raseshwari Devi (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)

Her only notable work is "involvement in the idol installation ceremonies" of some temples. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails wp:GNG / wp:ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic shamanism

[edit]
Slavic shamanism (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)

Original research combined with nonsense. There is no such thing as "Slavic shamanism", no more than "Slavic druidism", "Slavic kabbalism", "Slavic voodooism", and so on, although one may concoct the corresponding texts with a bit of fantasy. All these terms are culture-specific and let them be so. --Altenmann >talk 06:14, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Baba Yaga's Book of Witchcraft" self-published by a tarot-reader as the main source of wisdom there? Really? Hold my beer. I have a couple of articles to write... --Altenmann >talk 06:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably could be redirected to Slavic Paganism, which would probably cover whatever topic this is currently trying to be about. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

[edit]

Religion Templates

[edit]


Atheism

[edit]

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]


Buddhism

[edit]

List of games that Buddha would not play

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of games that Buddha would not play (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)

Not notable whatsoever, can easily be merged into Buddha if it were notable Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Buddha per nom (WP:NOTSTATS) JTZegers (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does WP:NOTSTATS apply here? I don't see the relation. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It doesn't appear there are any new reasons to claim non-notability that weren't raised last time, and just repeating the nomination to seek a different result isn't good practice. The same list occurs in multiple distinct locations in the canon, indicating that it is a distinct thing in itself and not just a random point of doctrine on the same level as any other. It has also been discussed in multiple sources other than Buddhism-related sources, as having historical interest of a broader kind, in particular as the earliest reference to blindfold chess (or a predecessor thereof). Again, this is interest in the thing itself not only as part of one bigger thing, so there is reason for it to have an article of its own. And that interest is not served by just mentioning the fact that there is a list; the historical interest benefits from seeing the list itself. It is not "statistics"; I don't know how WP:NOTSTATS would be relevant. And because this list is closed - it is not expected to have items added or deleted in the future - it does not have some of the practical problems that lists in Wikipedia often have. Consider whether the Seven deadly sins ought to be merged into Jesus; it's not clear there is a qualitative difference. 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)— 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    This is not like a comparison between the seven deadly sins and Jesus, this is like a comparison between "Foods that Jesus would not eat" and Jesus. Benedictions, FarmerUpbeat (talk) 00:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether a better analogy exists isn't a deletion criterion. Neither is the number of edits I have made, nor someone's opinion of whether the Buddha had bigger things to worry about than what the Pali Canon says he taught. What can be said about actual deletion criteria? 2607:FEA8:1280:5D00:0:0:0:CAD1 (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing useful for merging. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is pointless and its accuracy is questionable at best. The buddha had bigger things to worry about than hopscotch and charades. 128.148.204.3 (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The subject is notable, the sourcing isn't stellar but seems sufficient to establish notability. The deletion rationale is really weak and nothing has changed since the last nomination. I do question whether this is most appropriately presented as a list, and I wonder if that is contributing to the repeated nomination. An article with the list as its subject seems more appropriate. (For example its Ten commandments, not List of commandments given to Moses.) AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]


Christianity

[edit]

Joe Heschmeyer

[edit]
Joe Heschmeyer (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 evidence of meeting WP:GNG. The only example of third-party coverage is this 2020 interview in a Catholic magazine. JTtheOG (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Mizell

[edit]
Stephen Mizell (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)

Non-notable WP:ROTM American pastor/businessman. Promotional page (WP:PEACOCK) that appears like an advertorial CV (WP:NOT). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Easter in the Balkans

[edit]
Easter in the Balkans (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 a lot like AI slop with many weasel words and is very similar to the Romanian article that is also being AfD'ed. It also incorporates AI images. Laura240406 (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it is clearly WP:CGC for the purpose of edit farming. This could also fall under WP:U5, in which case the editor should be blocked from editing. JTZegers (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
how can you be so sure it's an AI creation? Lord Mountbutter (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just looks like an AI slop job, with pictures and all. JTZegers (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
btw the author's response also sounds very much AI generated and includes a lot of en dashes in a way that ChatGPT allegedly uses them Laura240406 (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 papal conclave papabili

[edit]
2025 papal conclave papabili (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)

See discussion for previous conclave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave. Lists like these are highly speculative and barely deserve mention in other articles, and certainly do not deserve their own article. This does not pass the WP:CRYSTALBALL WP:10YEARTEST. It's always contain by its very nature WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The argument will be made that people are looking for this information, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. In two weeks this article will mean nothing. There will not be any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE after the conclave finishes. If anything it should have some candidates in prose at 2025 papal conclave, or maybe a table at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure that there there shall be analyses of the analyses.
And for context: consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this, and if anything, it should be in prose, in the article. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, Religion, and Christianity. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Subject is receiving massive attention in the global press/media and easily passes GNG. It will almost certainly merit inclusion long term, either as a stand alone article or being merged into the main article on the conclave. How can you have a serious article about a papal conclave w/o discussing the various possible successors? Beyond which, as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE, the vast majority of those coming to Wikipedia over the conclave are going to be looking for information about the various papabili. Removing this kind of well sourced content would be a serious disservice to our readers. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ad Orientem: This sort of list is definitely WP:USEFUL, but almost certainly not encyclopedic. As stated in my !vote below, this is above all else a matter of original research in compiling what boils down to Wikipedia's own curated list of frontrunners, which is not something we should have as an encyclopedia. If readers want to read about potential frontrunners (which, I stress, can be no more than speculative), they should simply peruse their news source of choice. The only encyclopedic list we can curate already exists at Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty is that the elector cardinals is a well-defined set and the set of papabili is not. I've only found (and cited) one analysis of the criteria in play. kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: to me, the claim by User:Darth Stabro that "consensus at Talk:2025 papal conclave has seemed to be, at least to me, that there should not be a speculative table like this" is only in the context of the papabili section of the 2025 papal conclave article itself; there was never any consensus about some speculative table existing elsewhere in Wikipedia on that particular talk page. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Delete. Let me copy what I said about the problems with the list of papabili in the Papabili section of the 2013 papal conclave article in Talk:2025 papal conclave#Who is eligible to be listed as Papabili? since it equally applies to the article here: The point of papabili sections and articles and lists of papabili in the papal conclave articles is to document which cardinals the media considers to be likely candidates for being the next pope. We should require reliable secondary sources on the topic of the media's papabili, not just links to random media outlets' lists of papabili. That is, any cardinal X can be included in a list of the media's papabili on Wikipedia if a reliable secondary source says something along the lines of "the media said that cardinal X is a likely candidate in [YEAR] papal conclave". The problem with the list of the media's papabile in this article is that none of the references are reliable secondary sources about the media's papabile; it's all just synthesis / original research using primary sources. 73.8.239.215 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The National Catholic Reporter just published a survey of the media; this counts as a secondary source, I think. https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/meet-12-men-who-could-be-pope
kencf0618 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I am not convinced that media speculation about who might be pope is of lasting interest. And as we all know, "he who goes into the conclave a pope comes out a cardinal." Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep if it can't exist on the 2025 conclave page, and it can't exist on the papabile page, it has to exist somewhere. Scuba 14:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to exist somewhere? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:16, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it was only removed from the Cardinal electors in the 2025 papal conclave page to create this page. So it would be false to say it wasn't existing anywhere. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2025 papal conclave - While the nomination seems to be WP:CRYSTAL at best, I do agree that it would make more sense to put the table in the article itself, rather than a separate page. JTZegers (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and oppose merge if deleted. Section was already removed from the 2025 papal conclave page after discussion, but receives enough coverage for it's own page Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I don't see why the 2013 page was deleted either honestly.★Trekker (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThis is pure speculation and the list is generated out of pure synthesis. Carbon case of WP:NOT. None of the presented keep arguments is supported by policy.Tvx1 07:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sometimes I'm baffled by the 'shifting sands' of notability arguments here. Sourced articles from a number of different sources about the selection of the next Pope shouldn't be the target of deletion. Surely this article is exactly what Wikipedia should be collating? Current, important, notable: it passes the "Pokémon test". But maybe it's just the state of Wikipedia now, where deletion is the standard and building an encyclopedia has become unfashionable. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:SYNTH is moot; our sources are journalism and gambling. WP:UNDUE is moot; we have one cited 2015 peer-reviewed study (Forecasting the outcome of closed-door decisions; evidence from 500 years of papal conclaves) and one 2020 book. And Fantapapa. And a plethora of citations. WP:Recentism, WP:NotNews, and WP:CrystalBall are moot; historically some papabili carry over. Our criteria variously conflict, hence the circular firing squad of recent days. That said, we can't not use the data available; you dance with them that brungs ya. kencf0618 (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2025 papal conclave : I don't really see why it has to be its own page. If there isn't a separate page for the papabili in the other conclaves, then where's the point in this page existing? Just because it's the latest one doesn't necessarily mean it's more important. HOPPIO [talk] 14:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (to supplement my !vote above): The problem with this article isn't that papabili aren't notable; they definitely are. A good reason why we shouldn't have a list of them is because there is simply no objective inclusion criteria for the cardinals who should appear here. WP:LISTCRITERIA states that the criteria should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. Simply put, even with the current state of this list, there are many other cardinals for whom we could easily find more than seven references, and we can never be sure that we have listed them all. In my opinion, this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia but in a newspaper, and a newspaper we are not. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we shouldn't have a list of them, then why have them in prose?
kencf0618 (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not only who are the primary (and secondary and tertiary, as applicable) prospects, but who were; cardinals carry over from conclave to conclave and American political candidates from election cycle to election cycle, after all. kencf0618 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an WP:Eventualist, I can assure you there shall be analyses of the analyses. kencf0618 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This is a solid article on candidates, one which holds its place among articles on the Catholic Church. Although a merger back into the 2025 papal conclave wouldn't be that harmful, this is a good standard to set on candidates for Pope, and I would love to see even more detail here. It could even be expanded in the future, with historical detail. PickleG13 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2025 papal conclave. Short=term info, e.g. election candidates, horses, is trivial after the event. WP:EVENT has relevant issues.

The Catholic Church and Conversion

[edit]
The Catholic Church and Conversion (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 do not appear to be any neutral, third-party sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In the whole book about him there is sigcov for a solid two pages [4] also [5] Contemporary reviews [6] [7]... there appears to be a lot more [8]. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: SIGCOV in varied RSs clearly evident. Looking at PARAKANYAA's assessment above, I think we should consider a speedy keep. Somewhat unrelated, but article is written quite poorly. @Terot: please consider spending more time in the drafting space before publishing an article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article only describes neutrally the content of the book, giving light about the author's central ideas. This is useful plainly to explain Chesterton's thought in his other works. I don't see how it would be reasonably necessary to show the aftermath of the book, or the possible flaws of his thinking in an encyclopedia article merely about one of his more personal autobiographical works, just to keep it in Wikipedia instead of deletion. Besides that, there are lots of neutral sources in various Chesterton biographies which will give more points of view. (Terot (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC))[reply]
    Well... if the book did have some sort of impact (negative or otherwise) then that would be something worth including in the article, as long as it was neutrally written and properly sourced. If it was something more discussed as an example then a long section about how people responded to Chesterton's work would be ill placed here - that would be a main article type of deal. But a sentence or two along the lines of "Historians and critics of his work saw it as an example of Chesterton's larger views on Catholicism... yadda yadda" would be fine.
    I'll post on the article's talk page so that I don't derail the convo here too much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In addition to the coverage provided above, it has also been reviewed in New Blackfriars (here) and The Furrow (here). ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reviews as identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KryukovRM

[edit]
KryukovRM (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 evidence of notability, WP:GNG or WP:NCREATIVE. Paradoctor (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Article says itself that "no major media outlets have profiled KryukovRM as of yet". -insert valid name here- (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

[edit]
General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (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)

This was proposed for deletion by Catfurball (talk · contribs) last year, with the rationale When I did a Google search I found almost no third-party references and those that I found were only trivial, this proves to me that this article is not notable. That was contested by someone else who believed this was better suited to an AfD, but that did not happen at the time — instead, Catfurball today started a second PROD nomination. PROD is a one-and-done process, so I procedurally contested it with the intent of bringing the article here. While I agree with the prior deprodder that this would be best suited to a discussion, I am neutral and have no other opinion here; this is as much a procedural nomination as anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I did another Google search of this article and still there are almost no third-party references that talk about it. Those that I found were only trivial, so this proves to me that this article fails WP:ORG. Catfurball (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2025 (UTC) To any administrator that closes this discussion you will have to delete all of the redirects that are connected to it first. Catfurball (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly doubt that. There may be discussions of the history of the SDAs which involve this body, but I doubt very much that there is all that much on the conference itself. Mangoe (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gary Land's Historical Dictionary of the Seventh-Day Adventists (2nd edition, Rowman and Littlefield, 2015) has a 690 word article just on the General Conference as a whole[9]]. There are also numerous additional articles on related topics, such as individual sessions of the General Conference.
  • R. Clifford Jones's James K. Humphrey and the Sabbath-Day Adventists (U of Mississippi Press, 2006)[10] writes quite a bit about the racial policy of the General Conference and its establishment within the Conference of a "North American Negro Department".
  • Stefan Höschele's Adventist Interchurch Relations: A Study in Ecumenics (V&R Unipress, a Brill imprint, 2022)[11] covers the ecumenical policy of the General Conference.
  • Laura Lee Vance, Seventh-Day Adventism in Crisis: Gender and Sectarian Change in an Emerging Religion (U of Illinois Press, 1999)[12] has a discussion of the General Conference as a whole and then info on various policies of the General Conference over time on gender issues. --Jahaza (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For engagement with Jahaza's suggested sources, added after the most recent merge !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Ahlquist

[edit]
Dale Ahlquist (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)

Subject does not seem to meet any of the qualifications in WP:ACADEMIC. Perhaps meets WP:BASIC but I don't think so; he has been interviewed as an expert on G.K. Chesterton, but that's not really significant coverage on Ahlquist himself.

Additionally, article was created by User:AmChestertonSoc, likely undisclosed paid editing; article overall is written like a WP:RESUME or WP:PROMOTION, and relies on primary sourcing. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 20:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]

No articles proposed for deletion at this time

Categories for discussion

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Hinduism

[edit]

Atibala

[edit]
Atibala (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 fails WP:GNG. Most of the detail is unsourced and possibly WP:OR (e.g. "He had been created by Ravana as a test-tube baby."). Only sourced detail "Atibala was a servant of Lanka king Ravana." can be added on Ravana page if it can be verified, but the current detail fails verification from the source - source says Atibala was Yama in form of a sannyasin. Asteramellus (talk) 02:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pujniya Raseshwari Devi

[edit]
Pujniya Raseshwari Devi (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)

Her only notable work is "involvement in the idol installation ceremonies" of some temples. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and fails wp:GNG / wp:ANYBIO. Zuck28 (talk) 19:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sunamganj violence

[edit]
2021 Sunamganj violence (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)

partially Notable but the quality of the article is very poor and there are like hundreds of such events of violence against this community and that but this event was not reflected much after the incident, users can create thousands of pages on the same topic but at a different date in just a day but its not done due to issues with relevance, i searched for sources which reflects on this incident which is atleast 3 months after but i couldn't find much. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep qualifies for WP:GNG and widely covered also. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parbad Kali Mandir

[edit]
Parbad Kali Mandir (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)

This article on a temple does not satisfy general notability with its current references, and has been moved to article space after being declined at AFC, and then was moved to draft space and back to article space twice. Review of the sources shows that they are not independent.

Number Reference Remarks Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Jagran (in Hindi) About renovation of the temple. Appears to be an interview between the news and the temple. No Yes Yes No
2 Youtube (in Hindi) Youtube Probably not Don't know No No
3 www.livehindustan.com About renovation of the temple. Reads like a release from the template. No Yes, just barely. Yes No
4 hindi.news18.com News article about the significance and popularity of the Kali Temple in Deoghar No Yes, just barely. Yes No
5 www.livehindustan.com About the history of the temple. Appears to have been written by the temple. No Yes Yes No

Better sources probably can be found, but the article is still not ready for article space.

  • Draftify as nominator, to be moved into article space ONLY by AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Jharkhand. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to formally express my opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. I believe that this temple holds significant historical, cultural, and religious importance, and deserves to be included on Wikipedia. While the sources currently cited may not meet the ideal reliability standards, I am in the process of gathering additional, more authoritative references that can help demonstrate its notability.
    The temple is not only an important religious site for the local community, but it also holds cultural significance, and I am confident that better sources can be found to back these claims. The current sources, while they may appear promotional or limited in scope, offer a starting point. I am more than willing to contribute further to the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality.
    I kindly request that the deletion be reconsidered, and the article be allowed to remain in article space while I work on improving the content and references. Additionally, I would be open to collaborating with other editors to strengthen the article’s foundation and ensure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
    Thank you for your understanding and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can you explain how this is an interview? Yes, there is an accompanying news video that involves interviewing someone, but the news article itself doesn't appear to be an interview. And it is explicitly about the history of the temple. SilverserenC 06:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing to express deep concern and strong opposition to the deletion of the article on Parbad Kali Mandir. This temple is not just a structure of stone; it represents the heart and soul of a community that holds it dear. For those who are connected to it, Parbad Kali Mandir is a place of spiritual importance, cultural richness, and historical significance.
It deeply saddens me to see that such a meaningful and revered place might be erased from the pages of Wikipedia due to issues of notability. Parbad Kali Mandir is more than just a local landmark—it is a symbol of devotion, a living history that has shaped generations. This temple has been a site of prayer, peace, and reflection for countless people, and its significance goes far beyond what is easily captured in a few sources.
I understand that Wikipedia requires reliable and independent sources, but the cultural weight this temple carries in the region is undeniable. The lack of independent, scholarly articles on it does not diminish its true value. To erase this article would not just be the deletion of a page, but the erasure of a piece of history that holds deep emotional and spiritual ties for so many.
I sincerely ask for your compassion and understanding. Rather than deletion, I urge you to allow this article to remain in article space. With the support of the Wikipedia community, this entry can be improved, expanded, and enriched to meet the required standards, all while preserving the essence of what makes Parbad Kali Mandir so important to so many.
Please reconsider, and let the memory of this sacred site live on, not just for those who know it, but for future generations to understand its significance.
Thank you for your time and consideration. 2405:201:A400:725C:A023:F99E:F4C2:22D7 (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find additional news sources (or published books) covering the temple in Hindi or just other Indian news sources we were unable to find, that would be helpful. SilverserenC 16:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete. I was the second AFC reviewer for this page. I declined the draft because of no significant coverage just as it was declined by previous AFC reviewer. Sources were poor and unreliable. Creator then moved the draft to mainspace without following up on feedback. It was reverted but the creator moved it back again to mainspace. I still do not see any improvement to pass notability. If draftied, I would suggest a move lock. RangersRus (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you address and explain the sources more directly then, RangersRus? Because the table up above seems incorrect in multiple aspects and I don't see anything about the sources being "poor and unreliable". Could you explain what you mean by that? As they seem like normal news articles about a location. SilverserenC 00:23, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Youtube is unreliable and live hindustan reliability is questionable. Jagran and News18 are poor with no reliable significant coverage. Jagran article is on renovation of the temple and need for 1 crore rupee for it. News18 disclaimer for the story based on legends, says "The information given in this news has been written after talking to astrologers and acharyas on the basis of zodiac sign, religion and scriptures. Any incident, accident or profit or loss is just a coincidence. Information from astrologers is in everyone's interest. Local-18 does not personally endorse anything stated." One of the livehindustan article is also on same legends and mythology, and these news also reads like "Paid news and undisclosed advertorials" per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. RangersRus (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:44, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Templates

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

[edit]


Islam

[edit]

Bahishti Zewar

[edit]
Bahishti Zewar (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 no doubt that the subject is notable as a book. However, the authorship of the book is highly disputed, and even the content variations are debatable. This issue has been discussed by Ahlehaqmedia, a scholarly website. In its current form, the article would need to be entirely rewritten based on reliable sources. Given the present structure and sourcing, it is not suitable as a standalone article. I propose redirecting it to the article on Ashraf Ali Thanwi.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kushtia Central Jame Masjid

[edit]
Kushtia Central Jame Masjid (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)

More reliable sources needed, i searched myself and found one but it was just a passing mention, needs more sources to establish WP:GNG. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep: The mosque was established in 1896. This is an old and traditional mosque. I cited a book in the reference.
ইমন (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: It's an old & traditional mosque.
রিজওয়ান আহমেদ (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be enough RSes to justify inclusion. This is certainly more notable than an average mosque and the page seems developed enough and supported enough to justify inclusion in my opinion. More sources would be optimal but overall notable. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is consensus, I believe, that historical houses of worship older than 100 years are likely to be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Sunamganj violence

[edit]
2021 Sunamganj violence (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)

partially Notable but the quality of the article is very poor and there are like hundreds of such events of violence against this community and that but this event was not reflected much after the incident, users can create thousands of pages on the same topic but at a different date in just a day but its not done due to issues with relevance, i searched for sources which reflects on this incident which is atleast 3 months after but i couldn't find much. BangladeshiEditorInSylhet (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep qualifies for WP:GNG and widely covered also. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wajdi al-Hajj Ali

[edit]
Wajdi al-Hajj Ali (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 WP:BIO1E, this figure has only received coverage due to one event which he didn't have a significant role in, and likely wouldn't have been deemed notable enough to warrant a separate article (which is reflected in the article's rather small size and detail). Asclepias tuberosa (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This is a instance of WP:BLP1E, as nom said. There is no secondary coverage aside from this event about the subject, which means that there is no real reason to believe that this subject is notable enough to have their own separate article. WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom
- RamiPat (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Mosque Mission

[edit]
Bangladesh Mosque Mission (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)

Is there really any need for a separate article just to write this little? It doesn’t meet the notability criteria at all. At most, it can be attached to Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. Somajyoti ✉ 19:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tafsir Meshkat

[edit]
Tafsir Meshkat (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'm hesitant to mark this article for deletion, but the sources here feel insufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG, as well as WP:NSCHOLAR (for the work in question). In addition, a rudimentary check suggests an extremely high likelyhood the article was written by AI, and lastly, the dates of the citations violate WP:MOS, raising questions as to whether they were hallucinated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I originally created this article 12 years ago. Back then, the size of the article was not much and so were the number of references. Per, 7-day deletion tag created about two weeks ago, I added more content and references. The sources (except for Hedaytoor website) are all independent of the author. That said, for most of Exegeses not written in English, the issues mentioned above exist. Take for example the following:

Tafsir al-Mazhari,Tazkirul Quran

Moreover, the references of this article went through a round of modification ever since this deletion nomination started. I did that to make sure they are all accessible online.Kazemita1 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments you have made here are largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which aren't really good arguments in this case and do not address the concerns raised by User:Bearian. Allan Nonymous (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my arguments are "largely" WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I mentioned finding several online-accessible sources in the last couple of weeks. I also mentioned that these sources are independent of the subject of the article. These are notability policies after all. As for what you call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I am bringing up a point about a big existing category in the English Wikipedia, i.e. Tafsir of Quran. I think I can expect to see the same standard being applied to all articles in that category. Kazemita1 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deep Research by ChatGPT (in Farsi) produces an article with multiple sources: تفسیر مشکات. My conclusion it to keep it. However, as an existential question, if ChatGPT can create such a decent article on demand without referring to the Wikipedia articles, I guess we can argue that we don't need to have a Wikipedia article in the first place. Taha (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Research by ChatGPT" is virtually never a good argument for anything on wikipedia whatsoever. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You might be surprised, but deep research produces really high quality articles. Also, it is more to the point than wiki articles. Disclaimer: AI is my research area and day job. Taha (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AI draft is slop, the sources are untenable including using Wikipedia itself. By all means, continue using it in your day job, but not here please. Geschichte (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Could we get some votes focused on non-hallucinated sourcing, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion


Others


Judaism topics

[edit]

2019 Racine synagogue vandalism

[edit]
2019 Racine synagogue vandalism (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:NEVENT. Coverage is largely WP:ROUTINE, of a legal nature, not analytical, and not sustained. Vandalism is also not a kind of crime that, in most cases, results in notability proving coverage. Merge into The Base (hate group)? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Judaism, Michigan, and Wisconsin. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it appears to have some coverage which does not seem routine to me, if this is routine, that is pretty tragic. [Far right network orchestrated synagogue attacks, FBI says][14][15][16] Andre🚐 03:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's crediting that to the FBI, there is no unique analysis in any of those articles, and it's also only two months later, except for routine legal proceedings, WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Antisemitic vandalism is very common. It making the news is also very common. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FBI saying it was orchestrated goes to it not being run-of-the-mill hate vandalism. It also made it into this book and this one. These articles [17], [18] and this [19] show that it kept getting coverage over time for whatever reason. Andre🚐 03:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How long is the book coverage, and what is it in the context of? It won't load for me. The forward article is trial stuff and the other two are local. They're sustained though so that's a little better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Page 314 of Koehler (which is Cambridge University Press) and page 238 of Payne, the former cites the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from 2020, the latter cites the Justice Department website press release. I cannot see the whole page just a snippet, but I can check to see if those books are kicking around a library or any other way to read them in full to read the surrounding context, but it is enough for me already that for 3-4 years this series of events is being covered somehow. I agree the Forward is a trial article but based on the content of it, plus the linked Ynet article that they cite which is dead for me right now but I will try to track down, I wouldn't call it WP:ROUTINE which if you read is about run-of-the-mill events like scheduled events or usually I think of product announcements. It does not automatically say all trial articles are routine coverage. Standard crime coverage would be routine like maybe something like this: [20] When the FBI is saying it is an orchestrated domestic terrorist group and people are using it as an example of an extremism trend in the US that is very not routine in my view. Andre🚐 03:30, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Sikhism

[edit]

Miscellaneous

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Religion&oldid=1289194395"