Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:02, 21 June 2022

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Religion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 by page creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa of Jesus, Child

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

The only source cited for this article is a website in Italian that claims the Mercedarian Order observes the apparent subject’s feast day on 23 November, but a quick search for "23 November Catholic saints" shows that she is not on the saints’ calendar.

Furthermore, a Google search for a "St Teresa of Jesus" comes up with Teresa of Ávila, who was canonized in 1622 and exalted to patroness of Spain by the Cortes Generales in 1627 – exactly the same years claimed for the birth and death of this alleged saint "Teresa of Jesus, Child."

All of this points towards being a likely hoax, and a very long-lasting one at that (over 11 years). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Christianity. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indeed a blatant hoax, created to cause confusion. Note that e.g. Sanlúcar de Barrameda, the supposed death place of this child, has a relic of the real Saint Teresa. Fram (talk) 07:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And then you have Theresa of Lisieux Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Probably qualifies for immediate deletion via WP:SNOW. I had forgotten I created this. It was at a time when I was trying to write articles about saints or venerables who were children and this website said she was five. There are a lot of saints named Theresa, not all of them venerated in every country or included on every calendar of saints after Vatican II, if I remember my thought process at the time. I had written several others that were all in a category called Child Saints. Looking at this one again, I agree that it is completely problematic and should be deleted, probably immediately. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am tagging for speedy deletion via G7. As you appear to be the only person who has added substantial content to the page, it appears to be eligible for {{db-authorreq}}. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Agree to speedy delete. Get it gone as soon as possible. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Endorse immediate action. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should go to the hoax museum instead. 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Send to the hoax museum. It’s important that we document this just like the other 10+ year old hoaxes (e.g. William Henry Farrow). 00sClassicGamerFan (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 20:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Pazhanji

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

While we do have a function as WP:Gazetteer, we require the place to have inherent notability. My WP:BEFORE has not revealed any. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Religion, Geography, and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Kerala. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cathedrals are generally the subject of multiple reliable sources, but some of these sources may be unavailable online. On that principle, I would keep this article. This search on Google News also helps. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to cathedrals generally being notable, this one is 500 years old and covered in Onmanorama, the Deccan Chronicle and The Hindu. Mccapra (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets general notability as a cathedral. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per commenters above. Can be tagged for development. IMO probably all cathedrals are individually notable; at worst a cathedral might only be covered as a list-item in List of cathedrals (and then some coverage with sources should be provided at list-item, and the name should be a redirect, with suitable categories, to anchor at its list-item). Note, however, that List of cathedrals in India, which is organized by denomination and includes this one, has no details about any of its items. Many are blacklinks or redlinks. So merging info about this one cathedral to that list-article would appear to be undue coverage, so again it seems better to "Keep".--Doncram (talk) 03:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Cathedrals are generally notable without more. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cathedrals are inherently notable! -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple reliable sources. MOSC cathedrals are inherently notable. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Coffey

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

Unclear what she is actually notable for. Sources are not independent (local Catholic church diocese describing their origin) and hardly indepth. Findagrave is an unreliable source, her death notice in the newspaper[1] indicates that the people then didn't think anything special of her either, with just a little bit more attention for her funeral[2]. Could at most be a redirect to the article on the diocese if one line about her is added there; but just being the first to teach catholicism in one small (at the time) city (and then perhaps just to her own children, as said here) is not much of a claim to fame. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Religion, and Australia. Fram (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Nom, although it's sort of a shame to lose such a fascinating little footnote, it is a footnote and belongs in a specialist history of Catholicism in early settler period Australia, perhaps as a passing mention in the Diocese page. Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this article should be deleted. I think a woman being the first to teach a Catholic catechism class in a new city in the first century that the country was colonised, is notable. She was a woman and so not usually allowed to teach Catholic classes and she was the first teacher of these classes in the city and state of Victoria in Australia. I think she managed a first and it was very unusual so she is notable enough. As for sources, please allow time to search for more secondary sources.LPascal (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]

Keep. Per LPascal. It also is referenced, meets WP:GNG and is of historical significance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My advice to Kerrieburn and other editors who want to keep this article to please read WP:FINDAGRAVE and WP:FINDAGRAVE-EL and then work to remove Findagrave as a source. This article has potential, but it also contains a lot of extraneous information which makes it look more like a Findagrave or Ancestry article, rather than a Wikipedia or encyclopedia article, which is extremely problematic. If you need more time to rework this, "draftify" / "userfy" may be an option as well. Happy to answer questions and help if needed, but it is really important to understand the Wikipedia policies regarding Findagrave. Another suggestion is to try to get a hold of some local history books like Remembering Melbourne 1850–1960 which aren't digitised. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I’ve seen the sentiment “AFD is not cleanup” often quoted here. I don’t have the time or the resources to fix up this article. As an American, I’m not knowledgeable enough about the regional history here. I also don’t think the article is anywhere near so problematic that it needs to be “draftified” or deleted outright. I assume references exist offline for a notable subject, quite possibly in some offline history of the region or town centennial book. When someone has time, it will be added and edited and expanded upon. This is an article that should be kept. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has improved significantly since it was first nominated for deletion, so well done to Kerrieburn for your ongoing edits. All the problematic Findagrave citations have been removed. But in addition to that, better sources have been added and the writing has become much clearer as well, so the argument for notability is clearer. I do have some additional suggestions for further improvements, but I will make them on the Article Talk page. (I agree by the way that AfD is not clean up, but I also think any clean up that does happen as part of that process is a positive thing, and in any case the sudden introduction of more Findagrave sources was a big red flag. That has all been resolved now.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and per Cielquiparle. Deus et lex (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you to those who suggested changes to this article and supported it be kept. I think this article now has better sources, notability has been better established and the find a grave sources have been deleted. I hope this delete discussion can be closed now and whoever does those tasks can delete the banner "for deletion" on the article. LPascal (talk) 05:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)LPascal[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Taj Muhammad

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

Fails WP:GNG in my view, the sources cited in the article currently aren't reliable sources per WP:RS and research doesn't bring up much in the way of additional useful sourcing. Mike1901 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Religion. Mike1901 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment There is one source which is of OUP publisher, but it is not accessible, other than that all other sources seem to be poor. Maybe draftify the article first to let someone improve it. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment As You can see I've improved the article very detailed, it is now easy to understand everything added strong sources that meet Wikipedia rules , i improved it and i suggest please do not let it be a smoke , keep it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.61.99.27 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per WP:HEY. Recent improvements to the article appear to have addressed the sourcing issues raised by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's something really odd here with the edits that expanded the article. It looks like they've been pulled from another article - Rumi. See the Childhood and emigration sections added here and compare to the same section in the Rumi article. Most (if not all) of that edit appears to be lifted from the Rumi article and Rumi changed to Taj. The copyvio report has some big hits, but I think those are all from the text copied from the Rumi article, which substantially predates this one (and appears to predate those reported possible copies). Ravensfire (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ravensfire above makes a very valid observation and I entirely agree with these concerns that the supposed "expansion" is nothing more than a prose lift from another article with the name changed where it appeared. Furthermore, the diff noted has clear evidence of the poor quality of the content being merged, with half-started or half-finished sentences and formatting issues arising from this clear violation of copyright. I would hope 4meter4 would retract their !vote in light of this. Even "expansion" edits before this which use credible references are relating to Rumi, but passed off as "Taj". There is no valid consensus to keep this and so i'd favour outright deletion or draftification at best. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also took the decision to revert the article state back to that from when this afd was initiated, on the basis of the above. I have warned the editor in question, who already has previous copyvio warnings. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice catch Ravensfire. Delete per nom and Bungle.4meter4 (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tillander 21:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

Religion Templates

Atheism

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Buddhism

Templates

Miscellaneous

Christianity

Himna kosovskih junaka

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

Couldn't find much reliable coverage on this topic to justify WP:GNG. The only source in the article doesn't mention the name "Himna kosovskih junaka" or "Hriste Bože", which is another common name, it only mentions the lyrics, quoted by a single writer and in a passing mention. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Christianity, and Serbia. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Business Network

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP, nothing is reliable. First reference is also about us page of this company, which cannot be considered reliable in any way. Youknow? (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Singapore. Youknow? (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This seems to be focusing on the Singapore organization only, when most of the Google News coverage I see is for the United States organization(s). Maybe it doesn't need to be deleted, but rearchitected to cover the PRIMARYTOPIC. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radical chrétien

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

Fails GNG: The only candidate who used the "radical Christian" label is Rousseau, and contemporary coverage about him is not significant. Newspaper coverage shows that the three candidates in 1967 actually represented the Ralliement des créditistes, with the label "Créditiste". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Christianity, and Canada. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Koukl

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Greg Koukl

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

No evidence of notability, warning has been in place for over 7 years. I cannot find sources to indicate notability has been attained since the last nomination in 2011, which was closed as no consensus. glman (talk) 18:43, 9 July 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 July 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Rather prolific author and is talked about a ton in the religious media, but a distinct lack of book reviews in "mainstream" media (for lack of a better word). This [3] review in religious media is typical... Some scattered mentions here [4] or [5]. We'd need more of these last two types of sources for this to have a chance to be notable here. Was hoping this would pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Christianity, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added another reference which squeezes him over the line on WP:GNG. But the Google scholar citations are actually pretty good, including 98 for Tactics.

List of women bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia

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

Fails WP:NLIST with no evidence that reliable, secondary, independent sources discuss Australian female Anglican bishops as a group versus discussing them individually. (The sources listed under "Further Reading" describe the experiences or cover women clergy more generally or all women Anglican clergy in Australia, not just bishops. The one exception, a book by Muriel Porter is not an independent source, as Porter is an elected member of the Anglican Church's governing synod and described in her Wikipedia article as an "advocate" who is "active in campaigning" for women's ordination in the church.) Meanwhile, the page fails WP:NOPAGE as a WP:CONTENTFORK of List of female Anglican bishops. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with most of the points you make as reasons for deletion. For example I don't think there needs to be one source dedicated to just female Anglican bishops in Australia, but a source can cover bishops in the Anglican communion generally as well as other clergy. The only point I can see as valid is that the list could be seen as a content fork of List of female Anglican bishops. I admit I only saw that other list after I created this one. In the case of it needing to be merged I think it would have been better to message me or put something on the Talk page about merging rather than marking it for deletion. I have marked this comment as Keep for now only to see if other editors want to comment. However if there is enough support to merge List of women bishops with List of female Anglican bishops... I am happy to do that and I will then continue to update the List of female bishops with the Australian ones because that is one of my areas of focus on wikipedia.LPascal (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: In case I am asked to find more sources on women bishops, I'm sure I could find one here on this list but I don't have time to do that just now https://search.worldcat.org/lists/1b9e2384-b013-48e0-b45b-911ee8d3ca3f And I think it would be impractical to expect to find a source who was a journalist or historian writing about the Anglican church who was not in some way connected to the church. If anyone writes about ordained women in the Anglican church it is usually because they are for or against and rarely are they "independent". LPascal (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comment: I have just found a load of newspaper articles dating back to at least early 2000s discussing women bishops as a group in the Anglican Church of Australia, so I could add those into the sources or Further reading if anyone thinks they will be better as reliable, secondary, independent sources that support a freestanding list of women bishops in Australia. Here's just a few but I will wait for consensus before I add them to a list.https://www.news.com.au/national/anglicans-elect-first-woman-bishop/news-story/670c8cfb59e29dc6a251374541369c8b https://tma.melbourneanglican.org.au/2024/04/one-in-six-diocesan-assistant-bishops-a-woman-across-australia/ https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria-rebels-on-women-bishops-20031012-gdwiyd.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/women-bishops-a-step-closer-20030704-gdvzja.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-09-30/division-remains-after-way-cleared-for-female/685088 LPascal (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge to List of female Anglican bishops as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:HEY, if any only if the sources found are added. Bearian (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evin Prison. This is a case of WP:BLP1E; Rostampour and Amirizadeh got a lot of coverage related to their prison ordeal and release, but it wasn't sustained. Amirizadeh's run for state office wouldn't be independently notable. With the apparent request for deletion by one of the subjects, the balance tilts more strongly to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

Hinduism

World Elephant

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

Entire article violates WP:OR. The sources that are actually reliable are treating the subject as merely one of them many concepts of Hindu cosmology. All other sources are either primary or they are based on outdated sources, and they don't help the subject in passing WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mythology and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Ashta-diggajas is a significant concept in Hindu cosmology, as the elephants that support the world. Secondary references are available in the article and cover the subject. WP:BEFORE should be applied instead of Bold blanking and AfD. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hindu cosmology. The article appears to be repeating itself a number of times. CharlesWain (talk) 10:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The concept certainly seems to have real-world importance and sources exist, although I am not completely sure on the extent. A pure redirect to Hindu cosmology is of little help to the reader, as the concept does not yet appear at that page. Daranios (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to evaluate the new sources added. I didn't review the sources but all sections of the article are cited so I'm not sure if the assertions of OR are justified. Let's focus on whether the sourcing is sufficient and of good quality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has sufficient sourcing. Repetition doesn't matter - this discussion is about the notability of the subject, not the current state of the article. The nominator also hasn't explained why "outdated sources" would an issue in an article about a mythological concept from ages ago.

Cortador (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or redirect, possibly to World Turtle#India. The article does need substantial improvement, but not total deletion. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hindu cosmology and World Turtle#India. None of the references treat the subject to be notable on its own. Raymond3023 (talk) 04:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam

Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama (of AP Sunnis)

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

The previous history of the organization Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama, which was formed in 1926[6], was corrected on the page In 1989[7], a new organization was formed after resigning from this organization due to differences in ideas And the person who wrote the article made a full correction on the first page intentionally / for his own people (WP:CONFLICT),WP:PE and added the previous established year to the new page and wrote the new page in a promotional style. More content from the first page is also included in the new page ~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, and Kerala~~ Spworld2 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 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 July 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete page on Hitler, USA, Samastha of AP Sunnis and EK Sunnis just because there are people who have COI. Content is to determined using the reliable sources. I am neutral in this. That is why I say "(of AP Sunnis)" and "(EK Sunnis)". Both the AP and EK Sunnis claim their respective Samasthas is the real one. I can show that. So accepting one group's only claim could be CONFLICT OF INTEREST, especially in Wikipedia where Ahmadiyyas are categorised alongside Muslims. Reliable sources call Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama".I am sorry to say calling for its deletion must be nothing other than COI since reliable sources do not support that claim. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very reliable The Hindu calls the Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama". There are numerous other sources that say the same. Neutralhappy (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dool News calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha (AP Samastha).
Mathrubhumi.com calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha (AP Samastha)
Times of India also calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha. Moreover this terms the Samastha "Samastha Kerala Jem Iyyathul Ulama"
Scroll.in says there are two different Samasthas
OnManorama.com calls the Samastha of AP Sunnis a Samastha and mentions "Samastha Kerala Jem-iyyathul Ulama"
News 18 says there are two Samasthas.
Arab News calls Samastha of AP Sunnis a "Samastha"
The New Indian Express calls Samastha of AP Sunnis "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama".
Manoramanews.com says there are two Samasthas.
Thejas News calls Kanthapuram's Samatha is Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama.
Kerala Kaumudi calls AP Sunnis' Samastha "Samastha Kerala Je-iyyathul Ulama"

Neutralhappy (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lutfar Rahman (muslim scholar)

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

The sources do not show that the notability guidelines are being met. There are no significant claims to notability. The majority of the sources are from an online bookstore and obituaries. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Islam, and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vinegarymass911 There are references in Bengali and English language to verify the article. Most of the references are in Bengali, because he is a Bangladeshi man. And the book references given are his published books. ইউনুছ মিঞা (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ahmed Reza Khan (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paigham TV

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

Unsourced since its creation in 2012. No reliable sources found online that contribute towards WP:GNG or WP:NORG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Islam, and Pakistan. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pakistan–Saudi Arabia relations per WP:ATD. I tried really hard to find references about this seemingly notable topic, but unfortunately, there is limited coverage, which I suspect is not enough to meet WP:GNG. I think there could be some coverage in the Arabic language or academic coverage, which I couldn't find due to lack of access. Therefore, a redirect is the best option. 2A01:CB06:366:2B00:D0D1:2CFB:B267:3962 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Association of Palestine

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

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

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

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

Information about the trial

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

Information about what the IAP

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
[12] in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First article seems fine.

Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

A review of his work on NYTimes

"Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:10, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Rostampour and Marziyeh Amirizadeh

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Evin Prison. This is a case of WP:BLP1E; Rostampour and Amirizadeh got a lot of coverage related to their prison ordeal and release, but it wasn't sustained. Amirizadeh's run for state office wouldn't be independently notable. With the apparent request for deletion by one of the subjects, the balance tilts more strongly to delete. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:41, 10 July 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

Sikhism

Miscellaneous

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 ==Religion==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teresa of Jesus, Child}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Mary's Orthodox Cathedral, Pazhanji}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Coffey}}