Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Religion

Shortcuts

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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 keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confrmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Book of Mormon places

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

Wp:gng - one or two of these list items are notable for their own article. There are no secondary sources about places in the book of mormon, leaving this as a partial list as derived by individual interpreters from the book of mormon. This should be deleted until reliable secondary sources write something meaningful here Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid list, presumably with defined WP:LSC. Not all entries need to be notable, and the presence of Mormon archaeology and Historicity of the Book of Mormon as topics point to these being a sufficiently discussed set to merit inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 08:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, disagree with the nom, as a good number of the list items are notable enough for their own article - Zarahemla, Cumorah, Nahom among them. This list fulfills WP:LISTPURP, being informational and navigational in nature. Rollidan (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the same as List of biblical places or the many other such things at Category:Biblical places, or Category:Significant places in Mormonism, or in any of the subcategories in Category:Religious places. Dream Focus 04:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think there is enough significant coverage of these subjects as a class (which is the key bit for lists, not whether each is individually notable) to merit a stand-alone list article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waters of Mormon

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

Article doesn't meet wp:gng What little reference it does have is a passing mention used to describe a plot point. No secondary sources cover this topic in depth. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Before nominating the article for deletion, Big Money Threepwood deleted a list of sources that an earlier edit summary explained "can be used to expand the page". Also, I added the shortened note citations to "Thomas (2016)" that exist on the article and appear to have forgotten to actually add the book to the sources list: John Christopher Thomas, A Pentecostal Reads the Book of Mormon: A Literary and Theological Introduction (CPT Press, 2016). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There are plenty of sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places, I am not seeing the sort of significant coverage in independent sources which would indicate stand-alone notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike several other since-deleted articles on that amounted to trivia meaningfully sourceable only to the Book of Mormon, the Waters of Mormon's role as the setting of the Book of Mormon's expression of what Latter-day Saints consider their baptismal covenant has made it the subject of textual study and cultural reception of which there is coverage (Stott's identification of an intertext with Joseph Bellamy's preaching; Bolton connecting it to Anabaptism; Whitley's coverage of its appearance in poetry). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and close nomination -- This was nominated by a now-blocked sock. — Maile (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Bogus nomination. X (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2024 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Accendo

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

There are practically no sources. The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism that is cited few times is just a generic and pretty short article on Discordianism [1]. Search of reliable sources (Google Books and Scholar) turns up nothing. Викидим (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Veverve (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Religion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources are adequate and article was recently restored via RfD. Skyerise (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it just me, or is this in effect an edit war in progress that has spilled over into AfD? Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: Don't see how it could be, since the target has been a redirect since 2015 that was just restored today. Unless you are referring to Veverve's nomination of 23 Discordian redirects to RfD on 5 April as edit-warring, in which case, yes. Skyerise (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: couldn't find a single source even mentioning this, not even the sources cited in the article give a single passing mention as far as I can tell (although I don't have access to the The West Australian article or Cosmic Trigger). Shapeyness (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps speedily, as a hoax. Like other commentators, I can find no reliable sources whatsoever that so much as mention "Order of Accendo". It seems to be completely made up. Jfire (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is, sadly, a dearth of good, independent, secondary sources on Discordianism-related topics, which has the knock-on effect of making them non-encyclopedic. Psychastes (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its been on the cat:nn since time began and not really worked. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest redirected to Discordianism until I noticed from the discussion there is a longer history here. The doubts about the verifiability that an "Order of Accendo" exists is convincing enough for me. Ben Azura (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2024 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moisés Espírito Santo Bagagem

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

Previously deleted and salted as Moisés Espírito Santo. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Religion, Social science, and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - normally I'm a quick "delete it again!" for recreation of salted material, but in this case the author has waited 16 years since the last delete and 18 since the original AfD, which is more than enough time for a subject's actual notability and our community consensus to change (and though I cannot access the deleted version, the writer seems to have taken to heart the comments from the 2006 AfD). So I'll urge !voters to give this a fresh look, ignoring the previous salt. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody other than me waited 16 years - this was created in 2010 and flew under the radar for those years. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the WP:GNG criteria and is not saved by WP:NACADEMIC. And the fact that this brochure has been created by one kamikaze account and curated by a couple of "others", does not help. Ignore the advice of cardiologists and salt generously. -The Gnome (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2024 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Split rock of Horeb

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

I've struggled to find sources since this was created. There are a lot of sources, but they are either fringe or seem to be about something else. I've left one source in the article as an example - the Fox News article is really a publicity piece about a travel tour run by someone who claims to have found the real location of Mt. Sinai. His book cites people like Ron Wyatt [2] Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Archaeology. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Religion, Geography, and Saudi Arabia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Split rock of Horeb is just one of many natural split rocks that can be found in many arid environments. Lacks reliable sources, as noted above, that demonstrate that this specific split rock has either any cultural, historical, archaeological, geological, or geomorphic significance. Paul H. (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is unlikely to be the real Split Rock of Horeb, but it has been the topic of some coverage, and may well pass GNG as an interesting-looking rock that is the topic of a local legend. If this claimant to the title of Split Rock of Horeb has a different official name, move the article to that title. There is no corresponding article in Arabic for the title انشقاق صخرة حوريب

I see several Google hits for انشقاق صخرة حوريب , but I cannot evaluate them. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL I added an infobox to the article to show where the rock is located. LeapTorchGear (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I dream of a day when Wikipedia can have an article on every big funny-looking rock, but until then... – Joe (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2024 (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 merge‎ to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr. I see a rough consensus to Merge this article with the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martyr (politics)

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

Low quality article. Parent article Martyr already clarifies in the first sentence that the word may have a non-religious meaning. I propose a merge of this article to Martyr#Political people entitled as martyr and/or Martyr#Revolutionary martyr. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Religion. Super Ψ Dro 13:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just seen that the article was first split from Martyr by its creator Scolaire [3]. This happened without there being any template requesting a split in the article [4] and without anyone else proposing this in the talk page [5]. By the way, another previous content fork of the parent article was already split and merged once [6] [7]. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what is known as a bold edit; bold edits are encouraged on Wikipedia. I did say I was doing it on the talk page, per your link, and nobody had any objection. After eight years, I think we can say that WP:Silence and consensus applies. If consensus now changes, so be it. Scolaire (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Low quality article" is not a valid reason for deletion. Had you done a BEFORE, you might have seen titles such as Martyrs in the Making: Political Martyrdom in Late Medieval England, Politics of Death: The Cult of Nazi Martyrs, 1920-1939, Imre Nagy, Martyr of the Nation, or Heroes, Martyrs, and Political Messiahs in Revolutionary Cuba, 1946-1958. The article clearly fulfils GNG. --Scolaire (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I see no need to have separate articles for people martyred for religious reasons and people martyred for political reasons since the term still has the same meaning of persecution. The main martyr article still includes a number of political and other non-religious related examples, so if there's actually a distinction to be made, the split should be done more clearly. The book titles above can still be used in the main article. The main page has 30 times the viewers as this page, so why make readers go through another link for the full concept when length is not an issue? Reywas92^Talk 16:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with you that there should be a clearer split. Any mention of political martyrdom, including the Revolutionary martyr section, should be moved out of the Martyr article to this one, and just have a hatnote on the Martyr article pointing to this one. Scolaire (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - in sum, I don't see anything with the information, which is all factual and correct. The biggest problem is that it's sort of a fork. A lesser issue to finding appropriate sources, but simple internet searches would help. I will defer to others who might decide whether and where to merge this, or alternatively, to fix it. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Did you men to say you don't see anything wrong with the information? Scolaire (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I don't see anything wrong with it. Typo. I'm leaning'merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per arguments above. The article seems to cite nothing to establish that 'political Martyrs' are an independent topic. Instead, it consists of a few examples that the article creators think the term applies to. This is particularly problematic when applied to contexts where events in non-English-speaking countries are being described, since as the martyr article notes, terms translated to 'martyr' may be applied much more broadly than is generally understood through normal English usage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, I'd have to suggest that there are obvious problems with neutrality involved. Generally speaking, people tend to be described as martyrs by those who share similar views - and Wikipedia shouldn't be presenting such subjectivity as if it was objective fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2024 (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 merge‎ to List of Book of Mormon places. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jershon

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

Wp:gng. This is an in universe location with little attention inside LDS circles, and none in independent reliable sources - especially no indepth coverage we could use to build an article Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Latter Day Saints. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 05:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Book of Mormon places. Doesn't seem like there's enough to make a notable stand-alone page from. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Book of Mormon places. Available secondary coverage of Jershon is better suited to summarization in Anti-Nephi-Lehies, for which Jershon is the setting. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 20:27, 28 April 2024 (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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rameumptom

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng - this is a definition of a term used in the book of mormon. There are no apparent independent reliable sources that cover tge topic in depth. This seems like an unlikely search term for the book of mormon, so I don't believe a redirect would be appropriate Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, which guides that there are times when it's better to cover a topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic. For readers, Rameumptom would be more usefully described in the wider contexts of the plot/setting/theology of the Book of Mormon; there is not an amount of coverage that would justify a separate article. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hydrangeans' comments. Trevdna (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2024 (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 speedy keep‎. The nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and there are no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secret combination (Latter Day Saints)

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

Per wp:notdict and wp:gng, this is a definition of an in universe phrase using only in universe sources. No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination in Mormon culture Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC) the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The statement that No secondary sources seem to have spent time writing anything in depth about the use of the phrase secret combination is not quite accurate. Looking through Google Scholar reveals the following:
- Dan Vogel, "Mormonism's 'Anti-Masonick Bible'", John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 9 (1989): 17–30), with discussion of how it was a euphemism for Freemasonry.
- Seth R. Payne, "Satan's Plan: The Book of Mormon, Glenn Beck and Modern Conspiracy", paper presented at a 2014 meeting of the American Academy of Religion held in Calgary, Canada and released on SSRN: mentions how the phrase was an anti-Masonic euphemism in the nineteenth century and became a term popular among Latter-day Saint conspiracy theorists in the twenty-first century.
- Patrick Q. Mason, "Ezra Taft Benson and Modern (Book of) Mormon Conservatism", in Out of Obscurity: Mormonism Since 1845, eds. Patrick Q. Mason and John G. Turner (Oxford University Press, 2016), 63–80, about how LDS Church president and Dwight D. Eisenhower cabinet member Ezra Taft Benson used the phrase "secret combination" and applied it to his right-wing understanding of U. S. politics.
- Robert A. Goldberg, "From New Deal to New Right", in Thunder from the Right: Ezra Taft Benson in Mormonism and Politics, ed. Matthew L. Harris (University of Illinois Press, 2019), 68–96, also about Benson's use of the term "secret combination" in his politics.

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 13:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, we could reduce the entire article to "'secret combination' is an LDS-specific shibboleth that means 'alliance of evildoers'". As the sources cited above make clear, the term is not generally used or meaningful to anyone outside the LDS movement. But even within the movement it means different things at different times (e.g. the distinctive and personal interpretation by Ezra Taft Benson described in the Mason source above vs. the anti-Freemasonry version described in the Vogel source above). I can see how from an LDS perspective they could be collected based on their common origin into one article, but as a reader and contributor to a general encyclopedia I think that a standalone article probably doesn't help our readers as much as directing them to more useful, contextual information about the few disparate instances where the term's invocation (not just origin) is worth discussing.
So, is there any interest in replacing this unbalanced article with two or three entries in the parent secret combination DAB pointing interested readers to those existing articles, something like "a term for groups of evildoers in the Book of Ether", "a term historically used to distinguish between Mormonism and Freemasonry", "a term used by politician Ezra Taft Benson to describe political conspiracies", that sort of thing? Those articles should already be talking about "secret combinations", and if they aren't, well, that's interesting too, but it could be rectified in those articles using some of the sources provided above, I would think. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First, the sources already in the article are sufficient to meet GNG. Second, there are very many other sources available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, its a borderline case but I think on review we are slightly over the GNG line here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2024 (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. ✗plicit 14:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hierombalus

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

This article was draftified and declined at AfC, but the draftification was then reverted, per WP:DRAFTIFY 2d, so this is a procedural AfD.

References appear to be glancing mentions, but perhaps this should be merged to Yahwism? asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Religion. asilvering (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a brilliant article and it would have been better for it to spend more time in development, but I don't see any grounds for deletion. AfC is an optional process. Furius (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep no valid reason to draft as the previously lacking references have been expanded upon. Additionally, the subject is notable enough to be credited by ancient sources as the teacher of Sanchuniation.el.ziade (talkallam) 10:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom comment: I think my nomination statement has been misunderstood? I brought this to AfD because a new page patroller draftified it instead of AfDing it by mistake. AfC is indeed an optional process, but this article should not have been at AfC in the first place; it should have been AfD'd. That is why it is here. The grounds for deletion is the standard one: there is not significant coverage of this topic in multiple reliable sources. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering The premise for this nomination appears to be based on a misunderstanding regarding the availability of sources. The article initially had some bare references that were expanded. There are numerous reliable sources that address the topic, suggesting that the criteria for deletion based on the lack of sources is misleading. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade Can you share which sources you believe contain significant coverage? I'm only seeing brief mentions. For example, Lokkegard says The theophoric name of Hierombalos, priest of Ίευώ, cannot be held divine. It is probably the same name as the biblical Hīrām, from which the odious name of Baal has been left out. That's all. -- asilvering (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering check the article el.ziade (talkallam) 16:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Elias Ziade I have read the article. Which sources do you believe contain significant coverage? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering Your concern about the expectation for "significant coverage" of a historical figure like Hierombalus is understandable, especially given the context of the Late Bronze Age./Early Iron Age It's true that for individuals from such a distant past, documented information is often limited. The survival of any records or mentions from that era is remarkable, and even minimal details can be highly valuable for historical scholarship. Considering the challenges associated with the preservation of ancient texts and the rarity of extensive records from that period, it's indeed significant that Hierombalus is known to us at all. This alone underscores his importance in historical context. Expecting extensive coverage akin to more recent historical figures may not be reasonable and could indeed lead to an underrepresentation of ancient individuals on Wikipedia. If the standard of "significant coverage" were strictly applied as suggested, many articles about ancient figures might be shelved, diminishing our understanding and representation of the past. It might be useful to revisit what qualifies as "significant coverage" in the context of ancient history and consider the value of preserving mentions of such figures, even when details are sparse. This could help ensure a more comprehensive historical record. el.ziade (talkallam) 20:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if we can get another review of added sources. I agree that we can't have the same expectations of SIGCOV in figures of ancient history vs. contemporary figures who have news coverage and biographies written about them. I'm not sure where this discussion should happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Well-discussed in sources easily available via GScholar. Central and Adams (talk) 15:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are some more sources discussing him here. I agree with the above points. Aintabli (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2024 (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 redirect‎ to Sefirot. Owen× ☎ 23:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sephiroth

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

This disambiguation page doesn't really seem to have a use, given it only contains two subjects, Sefirot and Sephiroth, which can easily have a hatnote at the top of their articles to accomplish the same disambiguation purpose. Given that Sephiroth is the name, and not Sefirot, which is only a similar sounding word, I'd suggest reclassing Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to just Sephiroth, and then keeping the hatnote that leads to Sefirot in the case that someone is looking for the concept. Overall, though, this page seems unneeded. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Religion. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above and WP:ONEOTHER. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:ONEOTHER and WP:DABPARTIAL. Unnecessary disambiguation page that can be resolved with a hatnote. Nothing else can logically be added to this. Agree with nom that Sephiroth is clearly the primary topic of the name so that article should be moved to Sephiroth without the disambiguator as well. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, there have been a few previous discussions relevant to explain why things are this way:

older ≠ wiser 02:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to WikiNav there is no primary topic, and in fact more clicks go to Sefirot than the FF character. Therefore despite it seeming "obvious" to video game fans, it clearly has a different meaning to the greater public. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The primary topic for Sephiroth is not Sefirot, regardless of the relative pageviews. While they may be transliterating the same Hebrew term--and I'm not sure that's actually been established without looking into the FF character--similar but different names and content is exactly what hatnotes are for, isn't it? Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica clearly says that "Sephiroth" is an alternate name for Sefirot. I think it's highly likely the FF character's name was based on said mythology, also given the naming of Jenova, which resembles a certain Biblical name of God. Knowing this, both Sefirot and the FF character are viable topics for the term, and a DAB page is required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I also support redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote per longterm significance if that would allow for a consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. No primary topic so WP:ONEOTHER is satisfied by keeping the page. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect to Sefirot per ONEOTHER. If Sefirot is indeed the primary target, per ZXC, then Sephiroth should ~~be deleted and~~ become a redirect to Sefirot. There's no policy support for a two-page DAB. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said Sefirot was the primary target, but that there was no primary, though it might be arguable that Sefirot is primary by the longterm significance criterion. In that case, though, deletion is unnecessary, a primary redirect can simply be made. The main thing I am certain of is that the video game character is not primary, so there is zero scenario in which deletion of this page is merited.

DABs can certainly be 2 pages if there is no clear meaning of the word. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, changed position. Saving thousands of people a DAB click per month is an end unto itself. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to here per nom. That's honestly the most logical choice.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kung Fu Man: Do you have a response to the WikiNav information showing that more people click through to Sefirot than to the FF character from here? Because it seems to indicate that making the character primary is the illogical choice. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: It could also be a sake of curiosity and is the top result Zx. I mean I know if I was looking up Sephiroth and the first thing I saw was that my curiosity would be piqued.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say that I had a gut feeling that 95% of the visitors to this page were actually looking for the religious term, but got distracted by the FF character and curiously clicked on that link instead. It might sound ludicrous, but if I asked for evidence to refute it, there is none. The only thing we know for certain is the relative pageviews, therefore similarly, that argument cannot be confirmed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zx you asked a question and I gave a response. Even WikiNav seems to indicate most of the results are coming from a search result. In any event, I'm standing by my decision on this. Even a basic search result on Google indicates that the fictional character is the primarily subject.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After thinking about this a bit, this request is in essence a request to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth although it is presented in the guise of discussing deletion of a ~~redirect~~ disambiguation page. As disambiguation is necessary, whether with through hatnotes or a disambiguation page, this page cannot be deleted until there is consensus to move established with a transparent and properly listed MOVE discussion (not through a backdoor AfD). And the watchers of Sephirot should be notified of the discussion. older ≠ wiser 17:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also OK with redirecting this to Sephirot with a hatnote to the Final Fantasy character. However, that same redirect was previously changed to a disambiguation page in this discussion. Pinging the participants: Steel1943, Dream Focus, Havradim. older ≠ wiser 17:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEOTHER. The disambiguation can be achieved with a hat note. Yes, I copied Shooterwalker. The hatnote will redirect people just as easily or as well as this unnecessary twodab. ~~Unless someone can provide evidence this is an actual alternate name/spelling for Sefirot and not simply a similar word, the character should be moved over it.~~ I do see its noted as a transliteration in the lead, which my eyes refused to register earlier. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I guess hat note does work. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's already a hatnote, and it would make sense to have one. Basically saying "delete per WP:ONEOTHER." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These delete arguments do not address the WP:SURPRISE issue when people - actually most searchers - are looking for a religious term and land on a Final Fantasy character. While the DAB page may not technically be required, WP:ONEOTHER is specifically for when a primary topic exists. The FF character is in no way a primary topic for this term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while Sephirot is the usual English transliteration in Jewish Kabbalah, Sephiroth is the most common transliteration in Hermetic Qabalah for the same topic. Therefore a dab page should be maintained. Alternatively, redirect to Sephirot with a hatnote for the FF character. Skyerise (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should Sefirot be deemed the primary topic, I'm fine with Sefirot instead being the primary redirect. However, the article should have a hatnote leading to the video game character given the similar titles. In any case, the disambig page is unnecessary given this can just be handled by hatnotes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sephiroth to Sefirot and add a hatnote to game character. Sefirot is the primary topic per WP:PT2 due to "long-term significance". --Mika1h (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth. I feel like this isn't a Mario situation, where the character is so big that they get priority over the name. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In order to move Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) to Sephiroth. Redirecting this to Sefirot because it doesn't seem that likely of a spelling mistake, and the current two disambiguation targets get around the same # of views. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, it's not a spelling error. I still think Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) should be moved here, and a hatnote can be added for Sefirot. Cleo Cooper (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about what first comes to mind, but about what is correct in policy. Moving the page clearly isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 21:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot, add a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), I don't think Sephiroth would get priority over the name due to Sefirot having significantly more long term significance than the character.-Samoht27 (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2024
Redirect per above. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For what it's worth, straight-up "delete" is not applicable here since the title refers to at least one existent subject. (Otherwise, I do not have an opinion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sefirot with a hatnote for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), per Samoht27 and MKsLifeInANutshell. This is the only fully policy-compliant option, as there is a clear primary topic of this WP:TWODABS situation. BD2412 T 20:46, 24 April 2024 (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 Draftify‎. I'm closing this discussion as Draftify. As far as I can tell, this just means that it needs to be submitted for an AFC review before returning to main space. I just hope it gets improved. Feel free to have a rename discussion on the draft talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islam and Arabic language

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

Does not meet WP:NPOV; relies heavily on direct quotes. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Religion, and Islam. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:I have improved the references now. Bengali editor (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless[reply]

Draftify: I agree with sephenMacky1. I do not want the article to be deleted but improved. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I feel like the article can be improved, but as it currently stands, it really lacks NPOV and reliable sources. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::See the recent sourcing, it is better sourced now. Bengali editor (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

It still mostly contains direct quotations. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::No, they mostly contains secondary sources. Bengali editor (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Umar bin Khattab said, Learn Arabic language. That is part of your deen. — Ibn Taymiyyah said, Arabic language is the symbol of Islam and its people (Muslims). — He further said, Allah revealed the Qur'an in Arabic andd instructed the beloved Prophet (PBUH) to preach the Qur'an-Sunnah in Arabic. The first followers of the religion were Arabic speaking. Therefore, there is no substitute for mastering this language for deep knowledge of religion. Practicing Arabic is part of religion and a symbol of respect for religion. How is this not a direct quotation? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 14:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::::For quotations, secondary sources have been used from books and newspapers. Bengali editor (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Draftify for aforementioned reasons. Also, maybe retitle to something simpler like "Arabic in Islam".

Slamforeman (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, should this article remain, I'd say it'd be useful to have similar articles like Hebrew in Judaism and Sant Bhasha in Sikhism. Slamforeman (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish languages. Bengali editor (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/ WP:NOTESSAY. samee converse 20:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars, I have added a lot of entries from established reliable sources. Bengali editor (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

The scholar you quoted, Elwood Morris Wherry, was an Islam scholar. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-muslim" islam scholar. Bengali editor (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about religion, but doesn't Muslim mean someone who believes in Islam? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And there is also more entries from non-Islam non-muslim scholars also. 01:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengali editor (talk • contribs)

And that's a problem. You said "Check out last changes and the section opinion of non-muslim scholars", but the opinions you added were Muslim. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, in the section opinion of non muslim scholars, no one is muslim. Bengali editor (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... so Islamic scholars aren't Muslim? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|

contribs) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC) :::::::::Nope. There are many non muslim scholars of Islam, means they are scholars of Islam but doesn't believe in it. List of non-Muslim authors on Islam, Category:Non-Islamic Islam studies literature, Category:Christian scholars of Islam, Category:Jewish scholars of Islam, Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, Category:Non-Muslim scholars of Islam and Category:Scholars of Islam by religion. Bengali editor (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a theological doctrine. You seem to be confused by the academic field of religious studies, in which people can be of any religion and still discuss others. Nevertheless, even if this article exclusively cited devout Muslims, those could still be NPOV as Muslim clergy are experts in their own religion. Nearly every theological doctrine will necessarily have to cite to its believers. For instance, a quick perusal of Trinity § Sources shows quite a few devout Christian theologians. Dan • ✉ 05:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per StephenMacky1. 三葉草 San Yeh Tsao 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a special status for the Arabic language in Islam.Salah Almhamdi (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Classical Quranic Arabic in Quran and Hadith literature is considered the most divine miraculous language in Islam as muslim scholars say the linguistic divine secret knowledges of original Arabic Quran can never be completely transformed into translation in any other form of languages. Moreover, using original arabic dictations in prayers (salat) and prophetic rituals such as Hajj is obligatory also. The traditions of Muhammad including the quotes and deeds of Muhammad are also preserved much carefully in original Arabic (Ilm al-Rijal) without any minimal distortion. Bengali editor (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) Sock, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lazy-restless.[reply]

Keep This article is without a doubt a useful and encyclopedic article – I was Googling for this topic specifically when I came across the article and was surprised to learn that not only was it new but that some editors want to delete it. I'm having trouble understanding how the nominator considers it NPOV for having direct quotes. Maybe mixing it up with original research? Nevertheless, direct quotes from the Quran to support the assertion that the Quran makes a statement about something isn't really original research. And in response to the draftify proposals: I think this article is more than ready for mainspace. Sure it's fairly heavy on blockquotes, but it's referenced, structured, formatted cleanly, and has a good discussion of its main topic. Dan • ✉ 05:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – when I found this article and voted in the AfD it had already been moved to the title Arabic in Islam. I prefer that title and think the page should be moved back there after closure. Dan • ✉ 04:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please do not move this article until after the AFD is closed. If the decision is that the article will be Kept, then a article page move can be considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is absolutely encyclopedic. Whether it should be kept or draftified is something I'm not prepared to outright decide, but I'd say that it is definitely notable enough to be an article. That said, it definitely has several, substantial issues. Ships & Space_(Edits) 01:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article creator was just banned for sockpuppetry and the article flagged for speedy deletion under G5. I've removed the CSD notice as I do think I'd like to work on this article more. Dan • ✉ 00:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with @Dan Leonard. Grabup (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2024 (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.

Religion Proposed deletions

Religion Templates

Atheism

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Buddhism

Templates

Miscellaneous

Christianity

David Van Bik

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

A (very interesting) article about a Bible translator that unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The two main sources for the article are both WP:SPS and thus prima facie unreliable. One is a collection of remembrances by Van Bik's friend; the other is a self-published (Xulon Press) book by a close friend of Van Bik and thus not independent. A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing else of use. Don't see a valid redirect target. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bible, Christianity, and Myanmar. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a bit of a stretch, but per ANYBIO #2 The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, I'm seeing him referenced briefly in the academic missiological literature as a translator:
"This was followed by David Van Bik and Robert G. Johnson’s translation of the Old Testament, published by United Bible Society through BSI in 1978" in Haokip, D.L. (2020). "Bible Translation in Kuki-Chin of Indo-Myanmar and Bangladesh: A Historical Analysis." In: Behera, M. (eds) Tribal Studies in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9026-6_7

"More Chin students, including well-known Chin Bible translators, David Van Bik and Stephen Hre Kio, came and studied in the United States afterward." in Mang, P. Z. (2023). Chin Diaspora Christianity in the United States. Theology Today, 80(2), 173-182. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405736231172682 Jclemens (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems like a stretch... there are a lot of people who work as Bible translators in the world's many languages, and I don't know that these brief references constitute a "widely recognized contribution." The second reference claims him to be "well known" but the rest of the sourcing doesn't validate that. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Taking a cursory look at the article, the source formatting is impressive and I initially believed that the subject was undoubtedly noteworthy. But looking at a sources a bit more reveals how narrow and superficial they are. The article's sources all come from just one book. Looking just at the PDF of the book reveals some serious problems (besides the fact that it is written in, yes, Comic Sans). First of all, the book seems to be self-published, which immediately excludes it as a reliable source per WP:RSSELF. The article also takes some of the exaggerated claims in the book as fact when it should not. Looking at [8] it looks like a WP:BLOG. It goes without saying that the article is sort of a mess, and its sources are no different. The subject fails the widespread, independent secondary sources usually required for notability. GuardianH (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's sources all come from just one book is not a correct statement. The majority of the sources do, including quoting separate chapter authors so it seems more diverse than it is, but not all sources come from that book. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--> Correction: yes, I meant to say most sources, rather than all. GuardianH (talk) 00:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic daily devotional

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

Original research. The subject lacks significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Ynsfial (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bible, Christianity, and Internet. Ynsfial (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Daily devotional. StewdioMACK (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mack. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever little, if anything, in here is specifically about daily devotionals to Daily devotional. Possibly nothing, in which case delete. Nearly everything else is boilerplate language that can be applied to anything in print media that existed before the Internet Age: It was sent by email. Then it started appearing on the Web. Early versions were clunky. Then it went to mobile apps. The End. Largoplazo (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. I'm just not seeing the super GNG-smashing sources that say this MUST be standalone, but there's Ebony for one, Crosswalk aggregating a list of them, and the Salvation Army plugging their own. There's definitely room for a more expansive section in Daily devotional, and arguably room to keep this standalone if someone does more digging and finds a couple more independent RS. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Dib

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia version of this page may have potential sources. -1ctinus📝🗨 21:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bishops of major denominations have generally been considered to be notable. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Khoury Sleman

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

I don't find that he meets the notability policy; I couldn't find any sources. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Syria. فيصل (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bishops of major denominations have generally been considered to be notable. See WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Scranton

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in independent reliable sources. I can find mentions (such as [9], [10]), but not more than that. toweli (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, Christianity, Norway, and United States of America. toweli (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm honestly surprised there's not more, but this is a group of mostly small churches that formed relatively recently. I found WP:SIGCOV in the Scranton Times-Tribune and this article in Catholic magazine The Lamp. There's a mention in First Things and in Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Almanac for 2014, and combined with the sources the nominator found, I think we have a bare pass of WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasons with the above-mentioned users. Nuwordlife0rder (talk) 5:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Unger Baptist Church

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

nn church; tagged orphan and unreferenced since 2018, menaing nobody cares --Altenmann >talk 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nagaland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG as an unsourced article about a non-notable local church. Nagaland is a predominantly Christian state in India with a Baptist majority, so Baptist churches are common in its region. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant coverage, one of 164 Baptist churches affiliated to a local association which doesn’t have its own standalone page. WP:NCHURCH, WP:GNG. Nihonjinatny (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Diocese

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

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from a notable main article it does not have to pass WP:ORGCRIT in my view. In any case WP:NCHURCH specifies that passing WP:GNG is enough, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very generous reading of NCHURCH which states that religious organisations "must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". Nevertheless, can you explain how this meets GNG? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? It's certainly not there now. AusLondonder (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There should probably be an SNG on this but dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are almost always viewed per se as notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007). (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax.) This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; there's precedent established in the discussions resulting in a long series of "keep" decisions for dioceses, and editors in those debates referred to previous precedent as well. Separately from this precedent, there is WP:SIGCOV for the FCE's Southern Diocese: see the Telegraph, Anglican Ink, PCN, and an encyclopedic entry in the Encyclopedia Americana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each article needs to be judged on its own merits, not false claims to inherent notability. This is particularly the case for a minor, fringe organisation like the Free Church of England. To equate the FCE to the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion is simply ridiculous. The Telegraph article is absolutely not significant coverage of the Southern Diocese specifically. AusLondonder (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are typically treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Diocese

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

Lacking secondary sources. Completely fails WP:ORGCRIT. There is no way that individual dioceses of the fringe Free Church of England are individually notable. AusLondonder (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from a notable main article it does not have to pass WP:ORGCRIT in my view. In any case WP:NCHURCH specifies that passing WP:GNG is enough. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very generous reading of NCHURCH which states that religious organisations "must meet the notability guideline for organizations and companies or the general notability guideline or both". Nevertheless, can you explain how this meets GNG? Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? It's certainly not there now. AusLondonder (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There should probably be an SNG on this but dioceses and other middle judicatories of major church traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican) are almost always viewed per se as notable, even without secondary sourcing (see AfDs from 2019, 2018, 2018, 2012, 2007, 2007). (The only "delete" results for a diocese that I've seen were for a tiny splinter group with no sourcing available at all or for an apparent hoax.) This isn't a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument; there's precedent established in the discussions resulting in a long series of "keep" decisions for dioceses, and editors in those debates referred to previous precedent as well. Separately from this precedent, there is WP:SIGCOV for the FCE's Northern Diocese, which is the subject of a very current controversy in the news: see the Telegraph, Anglican Ink, Christian Today and the Lancashire Post. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes you think that precedent matters on wikipedia? We're a consenus based organization, that means that we explicitly reject the concept of precedent. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG, anglicanmainstream.org and anglican.ink are blogs, telegraph.co.uk does not write about the church itself but about an alleged crime (you could in theory use it to claim that the crime was notable, but not the church), and it would be weird to use the Lancashire Post article to claim its notable because the article is about how non-notable it is Demolition is justified through the current state of the building not being fit for use and no longer used by the local community. so you'd only have an article on christiantoday.com which is way too meager to make something notable. Polygnotus (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment deletion is obviously inappropriate, but I'm curious regarding the motivation to break this off from the main FCE article, as I don't see there's a SIZE issue necessitating a split. Jclemens (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? Because currently this does not pass WP:GNG. Thank you, Polygnotus (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Do you need a basic intro to alternatives to deletion? Because I don't want to sound pedantic if you already understand it, but your question makes no sense in light of the content of my comment. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I know that merging exist, but your POV is as clear as mud to me. If a subject does not meet GNG standards, delete/merge seems the only appropriate action possible. I also don't know why everyone is named clemens and I feel a bit left out. Poly "clemens" gnotus (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously know nothing of the sort. I'm a curationist, which means I'm always looking to present information in the best possible format, and merging or redirection is one of the best tools to do that. Deletion is unnecessarily confrontational for content where non-notability is the primary argument that it shouldn't exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: This is an encyclopedia, not /r/datahoarder, so deleting is not "confrontational", it is perhaps the most important thing you can do to improve Wikipedia. The Northern Diocese does not meet GNG, and the little content it has would be difficult to merge into the FCE article. Polygnotus (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a great argument for keeping it as a separate article. I agree. Keep as merging would be suboptimal and per the other keep arguments. Jclemens (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: you appear to be deliberately misinterpreting what Polygnotus said, there is no good faith way to interpret that as a "great argument for keeping it as a separate article" other than incompetence (which doesn't seem to be your issue) so this is uncivil and disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back Please temper your comments. You are entitled to your opinions, but impugning the good faith and/or competence of editors who disagree with you is not conducive to a collegial discussion. Kind regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At best Jclemens is mocking Polygnotus, that is not conducive to a collegial discussion... But you did not ask Jclemens to temper their comments or lecture them about impugning Polygnotus's competence and good faith (which is the result of such public mockery). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. I'm merely applying the natural consequence of Polygnotus' badgering behavior. Beginning with would you be so kind to provide some sources that demonstrate notability? that editor's behavior has been irrelevant to my position--should this be kept or merged?--and as such, convinced me that opposing their apparent attempt to Right Great Wrongs was in the encyclopedia's best interest. You see, I could care less whether a religious group is a fringe schism or not, I just want us to cover it appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Back to work please gentlemen. Polygnotus (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now we're throwing evidence free aspersions of WP:badgering? There had better be evidence from other pages to support that assertion, because the edits to this page do not. I don't see how sources that demonstrate notability could be irrelevant to a position taken in a deletion discussion... Such a position can only be based on the existance or presumed existence of such sources (there is no other path to notability). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I !voted above, I do think based on longstanding precedent "keep" is the community default for this sort of article, but I would accept "merge" as an alternative based on the size of the diocese (and considering that had it been up to me I would not have created free-standing pages for the FCE dioceses in the first place). Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding precedent that dioceses of established church organizations are treated as presumptively notable, provided that they actually have more than just a collection of people holding meetings in their living rooms. The diocese is admittedly rather small. But I think it passes our customary threshold. This has been the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to these articles for as long as I can remember. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't get this circular reasoning. It's directly at odds with long-established policy that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools" - should this been removed from WP:ORGCRIT then? Also "Presumptively notable" means we assume it is notable, unless evidence exists to the contrary, as it does here. AusLondonder (talk) 10:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder I think you're taking an excessively legalistic approach to this. If you look at the subject of ships; almost any named military vessel or ocean going commercial ship has been treated as presumptively notable as long as there is evidence that it exists (or did). ASFAIK this is not explicitly spelled out in any guidelines. But I can't remember the last time an article about a military vessel or ocean going ship was deleted at AfD. And yes there are some obscure ships with very little in the form RS coverage. Sometimes just a short blurb in Janes and/or maybe an old news clipping somewhere. In the end, NORG is not policy. It's a guideline as are all of the SNGs. And there are and have always been generally accepted exceptions that the community has adopted organically over the years w/o spelling it all out in a new or amended guideline. On the other hand WP:IAR is WP:POLICY. I don't wish to come across as trivializing NORG or any of our other SNGs. I think they serve a useful purpose in keeping the clutter and promotional fertilizer out of the project. But I do not believe they should be treated as some form of scripture, i.e. infallible, inerrant and the last word on all matters. See also WP:COMMONSENSE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to cite WP:IAR to explain why an article about an individual diocese of a fringe religious group with less than 20 churches in a country of nearly 70 million should be kept irrespective of sourcing, I think that demonstrates my point completely. AusLondonder (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fringe religious group? Ummm... ok. I think we have reached a point where we should just agree that we disagree and move on. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what's controversial there. I'm not suggesting religious groups are fringe in general, I'm saying this is a very, very small group. It has less than 20 member churches, many with tiny congregations. In comparison the Diocese of Bristol in the Church of England has more than 200 churches alone. AusLondonder (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such precendent... And wikipedia is not a precedent based organization... When it comes to policy and guideline based arguments precedent is not among them. You are currently arguing against a common sense approach, your position is the extremist/anti-consensus one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only valid (policy and guideline based) keep argument is Atlantic306's... They're right that it doesn't have to pass ORGCRIT and they're right that passing GNG would be enough... The problem is that they don't demonstrate that it passes GNG, and it doesn't pass GNG. People keep saying precendent... but there is no precendent in policy or guideine on wikipedia, we're explicitly a consenus bases organization not a precendent based one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why merging to the parent denomination isn't appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if a small selection of editors had actually made a case for merging rather than falsely asserting all dioceses of all religious groups no matter the size are notable irrespective of lack of secondary sources then people might be supporting a merge. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth merging in this context. Merging is for when there is valuable content that would be of use somewhere else on wikipedia, this is self-sourced clutter of no signficant encyclopedic value. Nothing valuable or useful therefore nothing to merge. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but either way, expand with the contents of this book
Fenwick, John (2004-08-24). The Free Church of England: Introduction to an Anglican Tradition. T&T Clark International (now Bloomsbury Academic). pp. 133–142. ISBN 978-0-567-08433-0..
because anyone interested in this subject is likely to be interested in the time the last surviving bishop nearly died trying to make the next bishop, as well as the local churches that split back to the organizations they originally split off from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this potentially contribute to the notability of the church? How specifically the Northern Diocese? Also WP:GNG requires secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 06:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you didn't read the source, since the story here is specifically about the bishop of the Northern Diocese. Saying that's irrelevant is like saying that hiring the CEO for a company is irrelevant to the article about the company. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how does any of what you've just said apply to notability? Because there doesn't actually appear to be a policy or guideline based argument in there... Fenwick is associated with the topic of the article so their book doesn't count towards notability at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the idea here that no source written by a member of a religion is Truly™ independent? We have not generally applied that standard to religious subjects, just like we have not checked authors' political party membership or nationality when deciding what contributes to notability for politicians or countries. It looks like the author became a bishop in this religious organization a few years after this publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No source written by a member of the leadership of a religion (colloquially the clergy) is independent of the organization they are a leader in. It applies to any organization (political and military as well). A paper published by a serving US Army officer can't be used as an independent source on a US Army post. Similarly coverage from a political party's founder does not count towards that party's notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Diocese" of a small splinter group consisting of eight churches. No significant coverage. No notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge, It would perhaps be an improvement to this article if former parishes were noted also, to show the shifting geographic distribution of the denomination, for which the 1995 R.D. Fenwick (an Anglican Communion bishop, not a relative of the FCofE bishop J. Fenwick) doctoral thesis, currently the first source on the Free Church of England article, would be a useful source as regards the 19th & 20th C, but would not cover 21st C changes. However, with the currently information alone, neither this article, nor Southern Diocese, are seemingly sufficiently large as to necessitate separation from the main Free Church of England article, the details of the historic bishops and the current locations is relevant information regarding the Free Church of England, the sufficient notability of which I believe is not doubted. SemperAdiuvans (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you rightly say, the articles currently do not demonstrate why they should be seperate from the main article on the church. I would support restoring some of the content back to the notable church page. AusLondonder (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Gibson (Christian musician)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jon Gibson (Christian musician) (2nd nomination)

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

I propose this article for deletion because there are many, many, many "sources" but which are often profiles and biographies sometimes written by the artist himself and anonymous users, the sourcing is horrible and it is difficult to find your way around, if the article is eligible it is absolutely necessary to rework the sourcing, I tried to improve it, but... SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 23:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also a lot of these "sources" come from databases like AllMusic, are there any press articles or better quality elements? SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have applied {{subst:afd2}} to this nomination, which did not previously have the full AfD formatting. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Military, Christianity, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has had a No.1 hit album and other hits on Billboards Top Christian Albums chart and also has coverage in album reviews on reliable sources such as AllMusic and CrossRythmns. Also this is significant coverage with a byeline here, and also here. The article can be rewritten or shortened but AfD is not for clean-up purposes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Atlantic306, I am not against keeping the article and you may be right about the non-necessity of this Afd, I could not find where I could make this type of request. But in the current state the article should be put back in draft and be republished later when a sorting of sources will be done because the article is hardly clear in the current state SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, although it happens articles older than 6 months are not supposed to be moved to draft so if it is kept it needs to be fixed while in mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article is a mess. Far, far too many citations to sources that don't help with notability, which makes assessing it very difficult. I have gone through every single reference and found exactly one that in my opinion shows notability: Soultracks bio, which looks like an independent and in-depth biography. Doing a search, I have found: Hot Hits book, a little snippet; Charisma and Christian Life, a frustratingly obscured piece that looks to be mostly about an album but I can't be sure. The second source Atlantic306 has noted is an interview, which cannot contribute to notability (sorry).

In short, based on the sources I could find, delete. It feels like there should be enough RS somewhere out there, but they're not in the article and I can't find enough to say keep. Atlantic306, do you have access to any offline sources that are pushing you towards keep? He seems like he ought to be notable...maybe some of his albums are notable and we could redirect? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have access to any offline sources but there are quite a few book results in a google search which I cant assess unfortunately as either its a small snippet given or none at all. Reviews of his music do count towards notability so I would include the reviews on CrossRythmns and on AllMusic (the paragraph ones, not the single sentence ones), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. RL0919 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 alleged Paris blackout

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

This is a non-notable internet phenomenon/hoax. The blackout didn't happen (as the factchecking references attest) so all we are left with is a number of non-WP:RS sites and YouTube making bizarre claims that failed to reach WP:SIGCOV. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Christianity, Olympics, Internet, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete nonnotable non-event with no expecxted sustained notability. --Altenmann >talk 17:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contraire, since it was during the Olympics and in Paris, no less, people will remember this.Jeanette the Transbian Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}
delete seems to be just some random internet hoax with no significant and respectable sources Pothos144 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are articles here about other hoaxes, and Reuters and Fox are respectable sources.Jeanette Your Favorite lover Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}
Delete If this happened EDF would've known and had statements about it immediately, and it would've been worldwide breaking news. Probably from the same oddball YouTube fandom that thinks anytime color bars appear on a channel it's a signal intrusion, along with Christofacist trash like source #5 (read WP:YOUTUBE @JeanetteMartin:); learn news literacy and about off buttons. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, Fox and Reuters and MSNBC, I believe (MSNBC), covered it so regardless that the EDF did not, its still a notable event. Also, look at my background. I am a transgender woman who has been here editing for 21 years. Nothing further from some of these You Tube right wing channels (although I am myself a Christian). Jeanette Mami Sexy Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}
  - Comment Nah, no mainstream sources, no article. This is fanfiction that if it were on a kid's channel article would get a hoax block, and even if there were outages, they were after midnight, mostly unnoticed, and short-lived, and likely standard overnight maintenance. Last time I checked, religious spirits have no experience controlling a power grid. Nate • (chatter) 18:37, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2024 Summer Olympics: could be a brief mention near the bottom of the article. Interesting piece of folklore around the event, but nothing notable by itself. Oaktree b (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the preferred outcome.Jeanette Redirect me! Martin (dime?) 00:00 24 August, 2024 (UTC}
Delete nonnotable non-event. RJFJR (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bastun and RJFJR. It’s also totally made up in one day. Placing it in a well-written article will rot it. We are not Snopes or such fact-checking sure. We have standards. Bearian (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (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.

Korea Jesus Presbyterian Church

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

No notability or SIGCOV; Wikipedia is not a directory. Article created 12 years ago but the only reference in it is an address database entry. Northern Moonlight 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason, note that they were created by the same editor:

I am aware that I’m supposed to put {{afd1}} on top of each article, but given the extraordinary amount of them, I’d like some help. Northern Moonlight 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays all these would not have survived the NPP. So Delete all, whether marked or unmarked by the nominator. --Викидим (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE ALL - ~~All of these are socks created by a now blocked user. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cryx88/Archive.~~ — Maile (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: What do you mean? As far as I can tell, these articles were all created by Cryx88 (who hadn't yet been blocked under any account), so I don't see how sockpuppetry is relevant. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see your point. I'm still for deleting all entries, but for the reason stated in this nomination. These were created from someone using an online data base, setting up individual articles from what amounts to a one-line reference info therein for each individual church. — Maile (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All 67 articles have now been tagged with {{subst:afd}}. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Unless these were created by a sockpuppet of a blocked editor I don't think any of these should be deleted before there is some evidence of a WP:BEFORE by the nominator or other editors. Also a number of these have an additional reference or two as well as the address database such as the one linked in the previous AfD which was no consensus, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these articles is backed up by independent sourcing. Cortador (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian Church in Korea has an independent source and so do others. Anyway what is important is whether independent sources exist not whether they are already used in the articles, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD does not include Presbyterian Church in Korea. Northern Moonlight 20:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the title is Presbyterian Church in Korea (YeJangHapBo), Atlantic306 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is, at the very most, a single source for a single article, ignoring reliability and independence for a moment. I don't see sufficient independent coverage here. If you believe that other independent and reliable sourcing exists for these articles (all, or nay number, really), you are free to contribute them here. Cortador (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is most likely not an independent article, it reads like a press release. Викидим (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is on the nominator to conduct WP:BEFORE on all nominated articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect.~~ The page creator had a track record of creating articles on every single obscure reformed denomination regardless of notability before his block, often using highly unreliable sources. The source used in almost all of these, http://www.reformiert-online.net/, is WP:USERGENERATED ("reformed online does not accept any responsibility for the correctness and completeness of the information."). However, some of what's on it appears to be based on a standard reference work by Bauswein and Vischer, and you can see all these denominations in this AfD listed on pages 297 to 334. So, these denominations exist (or did at one point), but I can't find any WP:SIGCOV, in English anyway, beyond a description in Bauswein and Vischer. I recommend redirecting each one that doesn't pass WP:NORG to Presbyterianism in South Korea, which may well be all of them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Some of the denominations might be notable, no bias against re-creation if there are sources beyond reformiert-online. But right now, none of these meet the minimum requirements for sourcing or verifiability; I'm not certain some of them ever existed. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously a majority of these exist. But the sourcing is poor enough I would not be surprised if a few errors crept in. Presbyterian Church in Korea (HoHun II) (which probably should be listed) and Presbyterian Church in Korea (HoHun III) have sources for the other name; as both articles say almost nothing it isn't terribly important. Are the "II" and "III" distinctions just the creation of reformiert? I don't know. There isn't enough for many of these articles to remain even as a redirect. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They exist (or existed); see the standard reference work (Bauswein and Vischer, The Reformed Family Worldwide) here: https://archive.org/details/reformedfamilywo0000unse/. I sincerely doubt that most of them would pass WP:GNG, but a redirect would preserve the history should other editors be able to resurrect them with reliable sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose mass deletion. Per Atlantic306's comment, the onus is on the nominator to research before nominating for deletion. Per WP:SIGCOV, any language source should count; I strongly doubt anyone here searched in the Korean language. I'm nearly certain at least one of those branches will be notable. Heads up that I am South Korean and a Korean speaker, and I have no reason to suspect that some of the organizations have never existed per Walsh90210's claim. The Presbyterian church is infamously fractured in South Korea; it is the subject of scholarly research in the country, and Christian newspapers regularly cover their drama. There are hundreds of these splinter groups, some of which are more notable than others (most aren't, I suspect). seefooddiet (talk) 07:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall which one it was, but I successfully defended one such article (may or may not be in this list) from deletion a few months ago. It may or may not be in this list. But if I've saved at least one of these articles in the past, it's probable that I can do it again. I don't think a mass deletion is appropriate. seefooddiet (talk) 07:48, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE recommended me to check interlingual links: I don’t think any of them is notable to have a corresponding article on kowiki either. Note that one Korean language source you cited in a previous AfD deals exclusively with the change in personnel and falls under ORGTRIV. Northern Moonlight 10:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you link the prev AFD? seefooddiet (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok nvm I found it, it's the one for YeJangHapBo. Also this source, from the major The Chosun Ilbo, is substantial on YeJangHapBo. If anything this just cements my point: making these broad claims about the kowiki and notability is not enough. Each one needs to be researched. Continue to strong oppose. seefooddiet (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the source you cited is actually substantial on YeJangHapBo? Northern Moonlight 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? Is this a facetious question? Do you have a different perception of it? Moreover, even if you find a crack in this one source, the fact that we're even debating this topic is not helpful to your overall cause. The takeaway should be that it's not 100% clear that every one of these nominations will be valid. Neither you or I know for certain the notability of all of these pages, therefore we should abstain from mass deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you not just assume good faith once in this thread? I read your source. Can you point to a sentence in the article that isn’t “X exists”? Northern Moonlight 22:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It usually pays off to be nicer to one's colleagues. Anyhow, I failed to find in this source anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. Викидим (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Northern Moonlight Ok, egg on my face and full apology. I'm sorry. It wasn't my intent in this thread to be rude but reading it back I can see how it came off that way. I'm also not sure if that source genuinely is substantial enough, you made the correct call.

What I do stand by is that normally we should investigate each branch before this kind of mass deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose. I don't really care for these, but it's evident BEFORE has not been done, and seefooddiet has good points that it's likely some of these are notable. --JFHutson (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not merge all of them into a separate article, perhaps something like List of branches of the Presbyterian Church of Korea? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps even the Presbyterian Church of Korea article itself. I might work more on expanding that one, but since most of the aforementioned AfDs are only a paragraph long or so it'll probably fit in WP:TOOLONG -- 00101984hjw (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can not be merged to a non-existent article. So, some editor has to at least start creating this target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That list already exists at Presbyterianism_in_South_Korea#Korean_Presbyterian_denominations, to which I have suggested redirects above. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Currently, there are at least more than 200 churches in South Korea that use the name "Presbyterian Church of Korea" (대한예수장로회) as their official names (hence the confusing article names). These church branches are only disambiguated by a succinct nickname, such as "Hapdong", "Tonghap", or "Hapdongbosu" (although they may use different names in English, like Hapdong, for instance). According to some sources it appears that there are four major lineages of PCK branches: Koshin(branched off from the original PCK in 1952), Kijang(branched off in 1957), Tonghap and Hapdong (the original PCK split into these two in 1959). The rest of the branches have descended from the four after 1959. [11][12] Since none of the four major branches have been listed for AfD, would it be possible to merge each AfD'd article to one of the four major branches, depending on where they descended from? -- 00101984hjw (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Too massive nomination. The amount of work to verify every church's notability in Korean sources is beyond what can be reasonably (let alone fairly) expected from competent and willing users. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)Thank you.[reply]
Procedural keep: I don't support deleting 60+ articles on the presumption that they maybe aren't notable. No research at all has been done for most of the articles. If even one or two are notable then we have made a mistake. C F A 💬 19:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep: I already believed these should not be deleted, and now I am convinced by other editors that redirecting is not the best approach with a nomination of this volume. However, I would ask the closer to close this with WP:NPASR and/or with no prejudice against WP:BLARing any of these where appropriate and where editors cannot find appropriate sources. My recommendation for after this closes is either to redirect the majority of these to Presbyterianism in South Korea or to, as 00101984hjw, a list article yet to be created; this can be accomplished through WP:BOLD mergers and redirection or through proposed mergers if controversial, with (hopefully) no need to return to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and this is beginning to look like a TRAINWRECK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

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

Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Astronomy, and Biology. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 09:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [13] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to indicate that this is an independent 'theory' in its own right rather than just an epicycle or fudge factor to try to get creationism to fit the observed facts. Could be appropriately and adequately covered here. Brunton (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with moving the contents to another article if the topic is deemed not worthy of a separate article by a consensus. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies or Delete, i don't know if you can redirect a maybe plausible search term to an article without mentioning in the target. Struggling to find even that much. fiveby(zero) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to young Earth creationism, which this is a minor variant off. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:

Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.

StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies, see no reason it can’t or wouldn’t be mentioned there. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the correct solution (otherwise Keep). It's obviously creationist claptrap, but that's not a reason to delete it, as Wikipedia shouldn't be the guardian of scientific orthodoxy. Athel cb (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the term "time dilation creationism" is used enough to make a redirect necessary. Googling it brings up hardly any hits, several of which seem to originate with the article here. It doesn't seem to be a thing. Brunton (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 28 August 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

16 Kalas as Per Lord Krishna for a Happy Life

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

Perhaps we could do with a neutral article, with a neutral title, for the subject; but this one should get the WP:TNT treatment as completely and unsalvageably lacking all neutrality. Perhaps it could be speedy deleted as advertising/promotion? Fram (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fram. Thanks for reviewing this article. The article has decent references in secondary sources to qualify as per Wikipedia guidelines.It also has decent searches in Google for guidelines on leading a happy life.It has been mentioned in leading book in Hinduism. Hence I feel it needs to be in this platform where it will be improved in period of time and followed world over in this platform. Thanks. Gardenkur (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities

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

Very unclear whether this group of "lower communities" which includes e.g. Sat-Sudra (considered higher castes), is a commonly accepted grouping with a clear definition, or some division created specifically for this article. Also not clear if the topic (Sanskrit texts by caste division) is a topic of study and whether these people are grouped together scholarly, or if this is some novel WP:SYNTH list. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Language, Hinduism, and India. Fram (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article of Sat-Sudra is very badly written. I have suggested an edit but my edit is reverted. Please check. Sat-shoodras are only higher than other shudras (asat shudras) and lower than every other varna. That is, Lower than Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishya. See the note on sat-shoodra there. Caste boundaries can't be clearly defined due to their complexities. The main castes are mentioned themselves which are considered lower nonetheless. Sat-shoodra only highlights their status in varna system. This is a dynamic list and more people from other communities can be added by everyone. The topic of debate has always been whether lower communities have contributed to sanskrit among scholars. This article helps in breaking the myths of denial of education and lack of scholarship among lower communities and foster inclusivity. Mohit Dokania (talk) 09:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST and WP:RS. Almost 60 % of the sources are unreliable. Andhraportal, wisdomlib, jainqq.org, sanskritkosha,sndp, sanskritdocuments etc., are not RS. A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent, reliable sources, which I find none here. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme God (Hinduism)

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

This article, which was whipped into existence just a few months ago, is negated by the very well-sourced and detailed God in Hinduism article we have had up for a long time (and is even specifically covered by other articles like Ishvara and Svayam Bhagavan). The new article also makes a lot of dubious and selectively-sourced claims, such as insinuating that all Hindus are monotheistic, as well as outright declaring that all schools of Hinduism believe in a supreme God (decidedly not true: many well-established and well-sourced articles, including the God in Hinduism article, cover this in detail). I believe the case for deletion is straightforward. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just read multiple articles that talk about how the belief in Hinduism id all sects of Hinduism do have the core belief in a singular supreme being. So I don't understand why you would want to delete this article unless specifically in the one you are talking about that you apparently have you specifically mention that although there are other deities in Hinduism they do believe in an ultimate god. It actually comes off very much like you want this article deleted because you are bothered by the idea of all mainstream religions having the belief in a singular ultimate god. Also just a quick example a political figure named Tulsi Gabbard who comes from a Hindu background and attributes her beliefs to hinduism has also said that in the Hindu faith they believe absolutely there is a Singular supreme god above all the other gods. 24.49.133.48 (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple other repubatable Organizations that can actually be held accountable for their statements like Khanacademy(Professor Julius Lipner) have also argued it is not actually a polytheistic religion so again unless in the "wikipedia" entry that you are describing as context for deleting this article specifically outlines there is a singular Supreme Deity in hinduism then this article should remain. Also all information in all forms should be free and available to all human beings so that they can make their own decisions. 24.49.133.48 (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as a highly dubious content fork. Mangoe (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam

Islamic Law and its Introduction in Pakistan

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

No sources that discuss this book, merely listings. This incomplete hit on Google Books says... something about the book but I can't tell if it's any longer than a sentence. No sigcov. The past AfD was closed as keep because standards were different in 2006, the author being notable does not help. Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi? The one hiccup is this was initially published not in English, but I cannot figure out what title, so I could not search to see if there were sources in its native language. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Islam, and Pakistan. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abul A'la Maududi unless notability can be demonstrated with Urdu sources. Interestingly the Urdu wikipedia article on Maududi doesnt list this work in the list of works by him, so I wonder if it's an english-language editorial collection of translated essays and articles rather than a single work by him. Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

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

Delete: Article is based upon false premise that the perpatrators are "muslim" nor are there sufficient primary or secondary sources to base the assumption that they are motivated by their faith, nor do we have primary or secondary sources to even affirm the perpatrators faiths. The gangs mentioned throughout are not all even "asian" or therefore "muslim". The article would best be served being incorprated into the existing CSE in the United Kingdom page where there is a section on grooming. This article does nothing but indlude wild assertions and obfuscate valid information countering the lede and name. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has good sources and is well cited. Agree that maybe changing the name or merging would be appropriate but not deletion. There does appear to be some debate the use of the term "Asian grooming gangs". Article does have a section addressing both the terms Muslim grooming gang and Asian grooming gang. Dr vulpes (Talk) 22:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100% needs to be merged, the use of "muslim grooming gangs" as a dedicated article is WP:Reliable sources and undue weight given the particular obsession with the topic and ethnicitiy of perpatrators, despite the fact that a lot of perps in these cases are not muslim and are still listed in both the list and map. Problemativ through and throuh. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi TwinkleStarzz, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for making your first contribution. The page has been renamed after a WP:RM discussion which changed it from South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic. The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK. The first WP:PROD believed that the article tried to obfuscate or downplay Muslim/Asian grooming gangs hence why new material has been added to provide WP:NPOV. Given the sufficient WP:RS coverage this topic has received, I believe that the page can merit its own article without being merged into a subsection of the main Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom page. There is no implication in this article that perpetrators are motivated by their faith, and quotes are provided from Islamic community leaders to address this. If you believe that any wild assertions or obfuscation of valid information has been made, this can be discussed in the Talk page of the main article, however the article is well-sourced and meets WP:V. I do not believe that the censorship of controversial topics is the way forward. Thanks. --Kioj156 (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled and disappointed by the selective nature in which some editors are choosing to interpret sources, the Bhatti-Sinclair and Sutcliffe academic study writes: "The controversy related to GLCSE can be resolved through the availability of authoritative data on the identity of the oﬀenders. In order to argue for this we examined over 2,000 press reports on GLCSE prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this oﬀence. A regression analysis found that both the Muslim and the Pakistani proportions of the local population are powerful variables in explaining the level of GLCSE in an area. The proportion of the local population of Pakistani origin is more powerful in explaining the level of GLCSE than the Muslim proportion, suggesting that, irrespective of their names, most of the defendants are of Pakistani origin." It details a list of local authorities analysed in the study (in page 6) so supporting news articles have been provided to support its analysis. The names of other towns and cities has been provided as the HoL document makes the claim that there are 73 towns and cities affected.

I think that your revision of this edit here as NOR shows that your own idea of censorship is perhaps misguided. "The article was first named Muslim grooming gang panic. I hope that this provides you with some context on why it focusses on a particular aspect of CSE in the UK." The context already is clear from each individual article, as well as the CSE in the United Kingdom article that goes into grooming as an issue, having an entire article dedicated to "muslim grooming" rather than just, "grooming" is indeed rather odd. Given your edit history, not that I enjoy red herrings either, your do seem to have a certain penchant for this topic and perhapos a need to step back is needed. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confused. I am not @Celjski Grad. You may believe it to be odd, however this specific topic has been addressed by multiple political figures, Islamic community leaders and has even inspired far-right terrorist attacks. Kioj156 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, my mistake! In any case, my point remains, based upon your edit history you have a certain penchant for this topic, and ethnicities in general, it is certainly odd to create a page dedicated to "muslim grooming" then include groups that are clearly not "muslim". While simultaneously ignoring the "grooming" section in the CSE article to focus entirely on the ethnicitiy of some of the alleged perpatrators. Padding out the exsiting articles about the cases, or the CSE page itself, would better serve without WP:Undue Weight. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:TwinkleStarzz, that reversion came up as part of a patrol of new edits predicted to "very likely have problems" — I haven't edited the article before or since. I'd encourage you to read the first paragraph of WP:NOR to see why text such as "it does therefore did not give an accurate representation" is problematic, but since you've successfully navigated the AfD process with your very first edit this shouldn't be necessary. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, Sexuality and gender, Islam, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change the title. The sources on this topic are more focused on their alleged ethnicity than their supposed faith, it seems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Academic research—considered the WP:BESTSOURCES for Wikipedia, as the project favors academic coverage—indicates the framing of this appalling phenomenon as distinctively Muslim is likely the result of sensationlism and Orientalism (in Edward Said's sense), a moral panic whose sociological function is scapegoating, and a moral panic premised on 'folk devil' tropes. The article's premise—that the defining characteristic of the topic is association with Islam—violates the WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia does not exist to regurgitate moral panic or sensationalism. We should look to the best sources, and when peer-reviewed academic sources exist for a topic, those are the best ones and should guide our content. Notable information can be incorporated into other articles about CSE, as OP states. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By way of comment: while I see where some are coming from with suggesting that the article instead be kept and reverted to an earlier version before the addition of racist and Islamophobic dog whistling, I think this is a case where WP:TNT applies. Having this content in the article's history is so unhelpful for the project that it's better to start over. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:TNT. This is racist dog whistling without even an attempt at an WP:NPOV. I saw some suggestions to merge into Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom on WP:NPOVN but much of this is unusable and reported with a straight face even as sourcing specifically talks about how this phrasing is racial dog-whistling. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working off this version, but a breakdown of the absolutely abysmal sourcing and abuse of sourcing.

(2) - a house of lords document. Should not be used as sourcing as it is WP:PRIMARY
(4), (5), (22) - Primary sourcing that explicitly explains that UK media has been racializing sex abuse as a dog whistle is used in lede as citation for it was later exacerbated by the Telford child sexual exploitation scandal and the Rochdale child sex abuse case.

Commenting that high-profile cases that took place over a number of years involving a high-number of victims resulted in the phenomenon gaining more attention is not a dog whistle. It provides contextual information as to why the association emerged. - Kioj156

(10) - A WP:PRIMARY source used to suggest widespread occurrence of muslim gangs.

(10) is an academic study, and there is nothing to suggest that either of the two authors are primary sources.- Kioj156

(9), (21) - Conservative politicians decrying cancel culture for not letting them discuss Muslim grooming gangs

This is included in the lede as it is the most recent commentary from political figures, however you will find that politicians across the political spectrum have made commentary on the ethnicity/religion of perpetrators further down in the article. The statement was by the former Prime Minister whilst he was in office.- Kioj156

(15), (16) - research specifically discussing reason why muslim grooming gangs is overpublicized and that as white people make up much of the UK, they make up much of the grooming and child sex exploitation abusers.

The UK is a majority-white country (83%) so it should be of no surprise if most crimes are committed white people, the commentary has been on the over representation of the Asian ethnicity. - Kioj156

(19) - I have no clue what Spiked-Online is but searching for islam or muslim on it shows significant islamaphobia. supposedly the wikipedia page for Spiked (magazine) indicates it got sued for Bosnian genocide of muslim denialism

Stuart Waiton, the author of the article, is a criminology and sociology academic and it would be better to address the content of his arguments rather than attacking anything else. If you do not believe his figures are correct, the figures he analyses can be found in page 26 of the Home Office report. - Kioj156

(25), (26) - written by Julie Bindel, mostly op-eds but stated as facts. Not sure why we are specifically emphasizing that white girls were abused, especially as I cannot find it in the sourcing. The wikipedia page for Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal indicates that it is a stereotype to suggest that only white girls were abused, when the abused children were diverse.

This is not stated as a fact, the Wikipedia entry reads for sources relating to (25), (26), (27) is: "According to feminist writer Julie Bindel, fears over "being accused of racism" had suppressed coverage and reporting of the growing number of grooming gangs operating across the country. Although "gangs" had been in operation since at least the 1990s, it was only until 2007 when The Sunday Times became the first broadsheet to publish an article on the phenomenon." It is to provide commentary on when the issue was first covered by a broadsheet publication, as well as who the publisher was. - Kioj156

No claim has been made that only "white girls were abused", this Wikipedia article also discusses the abuse of Sikh girls. In the case of Rotherham, the National Crime Agency found that "The vast majority of victims were white British girls aged 11 to 18" and "The NCA inquiry, the biggest of its kind in the UK, has identified 110 suspects, of whom 80% are of Pakistani heritage".- Kioj156

(46) - says nothing about muslims grooming gangs, simply states abusers were muslim.

(47) - report does not indicate ethnicity, or religion. Only that taxi drivers were abusers

(48), (49), (50), (51) - no specific writing of race or religion, just have muslim-ish names printed out.

actually sources 43-88 are just read outs of local crime reports. I stopped reading past 51 because of how lazy and useless this is.

(28), (84), (114) - The Sun is deprecated,

(28) is used to provide a claim by a Sikh charity that abuse began in the 1960s, and (84) is used to provide a name of a settlement. It is not used for analysis.

(114) - and we are using an opinion piece as analysis, one that caused significant outrage.

(114) is not used for analysis. It is used to provide a direct quotation of the specific words used by the Labour MP and the subsequent backlash she received. This line of thought also applies to the opinion pieces written by other politicians.

This is after 30 minutes of tearing through sourcing. Is there a way to have some neutral version of this article up? Maybe. Is child sex exploitation by desi men a worthy topic to consider? Including by considering criticism of it as racialized dog whistling? Yes. But as is, this article is entirely racist BUNK not even worth keeping a history of, and should be wiped from wikipedia.. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could I keep looking through and tearing apart this article? Yeah. Not worth my time. Someone else can throw their lot at it if they want too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to deletion - Revert to this version [14], and rename article to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I prefer this option actually. I've reverted to last good version. There is probably a sex abuse issue in the UK desi community, and some research indicates it could be due to lack of tools and social support to Desi women. There is also probably a POV article when we uncritically misuse sourcing to allege every other UK desi guy is a sex abuser. I think we can start to rework sourcing from previous bad version eventually back into this article. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth incorprating into the CSE page under localised grooming, not having a standalone article that as you've correctly pointed out will be subject to rife POV edits and problems, keeping it all on one page where the subject can be discussed with full context is much more worth it than a singular article that we know will historically be problematic with certain editos - whether now or in the future. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert asap to the last good version[[15]]. WP is not a soapbox for moral panic mongering. Subsequently we can talk about WP:SIGCOV for the moral panic and the best title to present it in case it passes WP:N. –07:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Austronesier (talk)
Delete, per Hydrangeans' comments above, with particular regard to the academic source cited therein.[16] Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of moral panics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A clear case for WP:TNT. The problem with this page is that, as Hydrangeans has demonstrated, the encyclopaedic subject of this subject is framed quite differently, and as long as this article persists in this format and with this framing and page history, editors will be fighting a losing battle against a media-fuelled narrative of moral panic. That is to say, the existence of a page about a thing implies that the thing is itself a subject. It isn't. The subject is moral panic, racism, islamophobia and the persistence of media led narratives. This should probably be mentioned in appropriate articles (several of them, so no redirect makes sense - and a redirect is harmful). Although it should be mentioned in appropriate places, there is no case for an article itself, which would always look like a war zone. TNT is not enough. Needs C4. Maybe a nuke. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I was going to vote keep, until I saw what a POV mess this is. It needs so much work it might be better to scrap it and start from scratch. Slatersteven (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article has been derailed from the original topic by POV edits. Or at the very least revert to the last good version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1231313707 and additionaly revert the article name to "Muslim grooming gangs moral panic" or similar memphisto 11:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article asserts that the premise exists, not that it is alleged to exist. WP:POV article. Rankersbo (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is never going to be anything other than a honeypot for racists, regardless of the best intentions to frame it as an article about the "moral panic". In the end, it's an article about a far-right trope which was used in the recent riots to provoke violence against others. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that this revision shows the article's state at the time of nomination, which was after removal of most "moral panic" content. It has since been reverted to an earlier version. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Hydrangeans notes, mostly. This is offensive and almost worth a speedy as an attack page. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to deleting this content, but there is an article to be written here about a real cultural phenomenon. It's not about Muslim grooming gangs or paedophiles of South Asian origin: it's about journos misrepresenting patterns in crime. Source, source, source.—S Marshall T/C 19:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd agree. This is not it though. Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this article to an earlier version. Thoughts about this version? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's badly mistitled.—S Marshall T/C 20:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was recently moved from the "moral panic" title by this spectacular clusterfuck of a RM - Talk:Muslim_grooming_gangs_in_the_United_Kingdom supported by a massive three people, one of whom has previous for this type of thing. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these POV edits happened a few weeks after the initial article was made, without any watchful attention from the community... Its def on my watchlist now, and I plan to start adding back usable sourcing accordingly. FWIW, I think the POV edits stood for basically a week before this AfD was started and folks figured out what happened, so the process worked, technically. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its title alone is utterly problematic. It really needs to go, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by one of whom has previous for this type of thing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not you, though you might want to consider changing something you wrote below. Black Kite (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I asked. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presumed you wanted to know if I meant you. There's your answer. Now, about your false statement below... Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem then is that because this coverage came from "generally reliable" newspapers like The Times, there will inevitably be people who will argue that we have to present this "Muslim grooming gang" coverage as a mainstream perspective that should be presented as equally legitimate to the very critical academic coverage. This topic in my opinion is already briefly but adequately covered at Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom#Group_based_child_sexual_exploitation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe it's worth noting that two currently-cited academic articles use the phrase "Muslim grooming gangs" in their titles. Based on that alone, I'd argue that the topic is notable. However, as others have mentioned, it might be worthwhile to move the page to something like 'Muslim grooming gangs moral panic in the UK' to indicate this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and well said, it was a frustrating topic to research with all the racist nonsense getting in the way. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Significa liberdade: "this is not a true issue but rather an issue of racist fearmongering". Indeed. This is what I'd hoped would be addressed with the proposed title of "Ethnicity and grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" - to say that there is a notable topic here, but it is the discourse itself, not a specific group of people. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a phenomenon that needs an article. There is vast evidence of it and it is a major thing in the UK. It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith (nobody is saying, incidentally, that they were motivated by that faith). Denial of this is sticking one's head in the sand. However, as I said at the RM, renaming it to Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom would be fine. But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it stood was racist dogwhistling, and many of the sources cited (and originally misused) all either talk about how the media does ridiculous amounts of attention on the ethnicities especially to suggest brown male on white girl violence, that statistics suggest that vast majority of abusers in UK are still white and sources otherwise were often politically motivated, or that a lack of resources for brown desi girls caused issues with sexual assault.

I propose renaming it to Grooming gangs moral panic in the United Kingdom Bluethricecreamman (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Do you have a source for that? That looks like a media narrative. Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford all fit that profile, but not the Camborne gang, nor the Glasgow one, nor whatever the heck you call this one [17], and countless more. Stats do not bear out the media narrative. There is no subject here, except the subject of media induced moral panic based on after the fact correlation of selected cases, and studied ignorance of the remainder. By having a page we lend credence to the false narrative. An encyclopaedic article needs to focus on the failings that got us here, and not perpetrate those same failings. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a media narrative. So, now Wikipedia rejects media sources like the BBC which have always been held to be reliable? That's a new one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A previous piece of research from 2015 found that of 1,231 perpetrators of "group and gang-based child sexual exploitation", 42% were white, 14% were defined as Asian or Asian British and 17% black. BBC: [18]
Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But folding it into a wider article smacks of trying to divert attention away from a phenomenon that definitely deserves a standalone article." this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Incorporating it into the existing CSE article on Grooming is perfectly acceptable in my opinion, and others here that have commented. The exisiting individual articles on each case goes into more than enough detail and wouldn't serve as a hub for malicious POV edits like the original did. Not to mention that no one has created any articles on the various "white" grooming gang cases, only a certain type make the wiki - that itself is perhaps a problem. In any case, renaming it to a moral panic - which it is, is a secondary option to incorporating it. Having a standalone article would need to be consistently monitored to stop those POV racist edits and is perhaps more work than worth. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. As I said, it can be renamed to simple Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, or didn't you bother reading what I actually wrote before jumping to incorrect conclusions? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you say "It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith" when the article actually says that is false [19] [20]. When someone commenting on an article where the information is right in front of them actually states the opposite, it is unsurprising that the intellectually challenged who took part in the recent riots believe it as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would advise you not to accuse fellow editors of being racist. " That's not what I did. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this is the same type of language that the original article was full of, plain racist dogwhistling. Yup, that's exactly what you did! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, saying you're using language that racists use, doesn't mean that you are a racist. Nor did I ever accuse you of being a racist. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read things more carefully! Try not to accuse *me* of anything in the meantime as you just did! TwinkleStarzz (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just responding to User:Sirfurboy's point above: the question was Do you have a source for that?, and the answer is yes: whether or not Necrothesp does, I do. It's in the academic source I linked above. To quote it exactly:

...Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation (CSE) identified to date, relative to the general population.

As always, the context is important. The title of that paper is Grooming and the ‘Asian sex gang predator’: the construction of a racial crime threat, which rather gives away its central thesis; it doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position. I invite you to read it in full here.—S Marshall T/C 14:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Later) I've reflected on this again and I really like Bluethricecreamman's wording, "moral panic". That's a pithy and laser accurate term for what we're dealing with here.—S Marshall T/C 14:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its what the article and title originally was before all the pov edits and the RM move. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't; it was "South Asian Muslim grooming gang panic". The panic was there, but the moral panic is, as far as I can see, all yours.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: Actually, that isn't a source for what Sirfurboy was asking. Necrothesp didn't say Asians have been overrepresented among suspected perpetrators of child sexual exploitation, he said It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith, which is false. And I'm going to say it again - that's two obviously intelligent people who are befuddled by this article, so it's no surprise it's become a racist trope for the hard of thinking, is it? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's got an academic source too, though. Let me quote it:

we examined over 2,000 press reports on [Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation Offenders] prosecutions between 1997-2017. We conclude that 83% of those charged have recognisably Muslim names, and roughly 1 in 2,200 Muslim males over the age of 16 in England and Wales have been prosecuted for this offence.

Source is here. The issue is with the extreme specific-ness of the offence: "Group localized CSE offenders".—S Marshall T/C 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't wholeheartedly support Necrothesp's position is indeed correct. The source I requested was for the statement: It is also certainly true that the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. That is wrong, and the fact that an editor and admin with the experience and intelligence of Necrothesp can make such a statement demonstrates the pernicious nature of media narratives, and the danger of a page that leans into them. From the conclusions of that paper:

The image of the Asian groomer has proved a seductive and enduring one, yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

And lest I be accused of cutting that of where it suits me, I note that it does go on to say that Asians are the second-largest racial group among suspects of various forms of CSE in two major national studies, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population. (my emphasis). That "various forms" is a gotcha. If we narrow the parameters then yes, the group is proportionally over-represented, but that is not at all the same thing as the majority of perpetrators have been of Pakistani heritage and Muslim faith. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly this: if you narrow the parameters in an extremely specific way, you find that a certain kind of CSE in the UK is mainly perpetrated by South Asian Muslims. But if you use other parameters that isn't true.—S Marshall T/C 15:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, greatly overrepresented relative to the general population for that very narrow form (and law of small numbers now applies). If you narrow the parameters any further, you are consciously selecting for the result you wish to find. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a much better source than the unpublished preprint you quoted from above:

A number of studies have indicated an over-representation of Asian and Black offenders in group-based CSE. Most of the same studies show that the majority of offenders are White. [21]

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom#Group based child sexual exploitation There's clearly a notable topic here, but it's much better presented in the context of child sexual exploitation in the UK generally rather than an article like this that will become a magnet for trolls. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historic and seemingly ongoing/current cultural situation in the UK. As Kioj156, Vulpes and others state, it is well sourced, cited and beyond contention. The topic merits it's own page, it does seem a tad like censorship of a controversial topic, not what an encyclopaedia should be aiming for.Halbared (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are poor, just because it is "sourced" does not mean it is actual quality. Nor is it particularly historic given grooming for sexual purposes of children, even as groups, has existed for centuries. I would personally also contest "current/ongoing" given the majority of articles are 2014/2015. Not to mention the statistics quoted being plainly false in the original article and the other egregious issues others have pointed out earlier on this page. Namely Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite. While the topic itself may warrant a page - the "moral panic" being the best example = the original article was wholly unfit to be on the wiki. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to remove articles. The topic exists and is clearly notable. I would, however, support moving it to "Grooming Gangs in the United Kingdom", since that would provide the same content and presumably ruffle people's jimmies less. Jtrainor (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single argument has been IDONTLIKEIT, and citing that is ad hominem. The argument is that it is not a thing.

yet, as this article has demonstrated, the idea of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. The construction of grooming as a distinct offence and a racial crime threat has been shown to lie on insubstantial foundations: misconceptions, anecdote, opinion and the deliberate manipulation of limited statistics of dubious provenance.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "UK grooming gangs moral panic" or something similar. Naming the country it took place in is neutral, unlike alleging that it was unique to one particular religion. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is certainly notable given the abundance of reliable sources covering it (see comments by Significa liberdade, Vulpes). I don't think the sources support renaming it to moral panic, this is what the Independent says “Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Alaexis_¿question? 08:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Some studies suggest an over-representation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending.”. This has already been addressed within this very page - it is a meaningless statement without context. I believe you to be misrepresenting Significa's comments also, or at least misunderstanding them. Academic sources are reliable, but the original article was incredinly poorly sourced. The "moral panic" angle is entirely justified in my opinion. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that it is "a meaningless statement without context" does not logically follow from what you quoted. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does, as other comments point out, without context it is an entirely meaningless statement where the conclusion can be obtained by obfuscating and careful manipulation of statistics and data. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources stating that any statistics or data have been "obfuscated or carefully manipulated"? - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can read this very page for how that has occurred further up. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is uncertainly we should neither claim that something definitely exists nor say in wikivoice that it doesn't. Which seems to me to be a delete argument. If we have a page on the thing, we say the thing exists. Unless we have a page on the thing and say in the first sentence it doesn't exist. The page on this subject goes beyond the evidence, simply by existing as framed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not go by whether we are sure or unsure about one thing or another, nor is its policy that we need to claim that "something doesn't exist" at the beginning of an article if we're unsure about it. It goes by what reliable third party sources and others such as academic sources say, of which there are plenty on this topic, making it notable. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable secondary sources say this is a media constructed narrative, and that the narrative of a uniquely Asian crime threat is ill founded, misleading and dangerous. What secondary sources are you reading? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia should not have articles that identify a horrific crime with a religious faith, just as we'd never have an article titled "Jewish killers in Gaza". Such an article would be blatantly anti-semitic, just as the article about alleged "Muslim" child abuse is blatantly Islamophobic. NightHeron (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia already has various articles doing just that (such as the articles on "Islam and domestic violence" or "Christian terrorism.") There is also no policy Wikipedia is based on in line with what you said. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not only as per the various other arguments made already (well-sourced, highly publicized in reliable sources) but also because it's hard to see good arguments being brought forth for deletion so far, rather anti-policy arguments using words like "offensive" (ignoring that WP's policy explicitly states that articles are allowed to be "offensive") and studies being brought up and misread that further provide reason to keep the article. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well sourced" is doing an awful lot of lifting in a lot of these replies, despite already being pointed out by Bluethricecreamman & Black Kite that it is in fact far from "well sourced." No one has argued that it should be removed for being "offensive" either. Blatant red herring. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is false and strangely accusatory. It is important to always assume other editors are acting in good faith, unless an editor clearly shows behaviour that suggests otherwise. Regarding your points, one editors' entire argument has been "This is offensive and almost worth a speedy as an attack page." The arguments about the sources don't check out, since there is a large amount of reliable sources being used. - 2A02:810A:12BF:E2A0:8D3B:BC5F:5922:2BD6 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It blatantly isn't false, and your reply is unfortunately transparently projecting. TwinkleStarzz (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The version nominated for deletion was awful but the version we have now is OK. We should have an article about this because it covers a prominent and perennial allegation made by racists, which has received significant coverage and which people will want to look it up here to find out what the deal really is. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also wondering whether the article should be renamed in a similar manner to LGBT grooming conspiracy theory? Possibly as "moral panic" rather than "conspiracy theory", unless there are sufficient sources to support "conspiracy theory". --DanielRigal (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article as it was before it was very recently emasculated was well written and well sourced. And as the phenomenon is well known in Britain, and appears to be ongoing, it’s obviously notable. The phenomenon is also horrific, the implications stark, but none of that should be given any consideration as to whether an article about it should be allowed to exist. Minimising and belittling the subject, however, by describing it as a moral panic and eliminating any content which describes the phenomenon that existed and probably continues to, is very sad. As it says in the version which existed before it’s emasculation, "In 2023, then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak claimed that victims of such gangs have been ignored because of "political correctness" and cultural sensitivity." The current article appears to reflect that. There is no point in having something which does its utmost to minimise and belittle something which is so horrific and, further, looking at the recent editing, it is clear that there is no chance of getting back to the well written, well sourced and deserving article that there was. I'd like to congratulate Kioj156 for his valiant efforts in that regard, and commiserate with him for the eventual result. Boscaswell talk 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying that if we can't promote the racist and conspiratorial aspects of this subject then you would rather we deleted the article and did not cover it at all? Let's be clear about why proponents of this moral panic call it "Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom" and not just "Grooming gangs in the United Kingdom". It is not only Islamophobia, although obviously that is a big part of it. It is also intended to shift people's anger about child grooming exclusively onto Muslim/Asian sex offenders, taking focus away from other sex offenders, so that other sex offenders can continue grooming children with less scrutiny. It is clear enough when you look at who promotes this moral panic the loudest. The far-right is up to its eyeballs in convicted sex offenders and it needs you to think that all sex offenders are brown to stop you realising how many of them are white. (This is also the reason why they promote anti-LGBT panics. If people are distracted worrying about drag queens then they are not paying as much attention to the real dangers to children.) Of course, we can't set the world to rights here on Wikipedia, but what we can and should do is provide accurate coverage of these issues so that people who want to know the truth can find it easily. This article is doing exactly that. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: Yes, that's exactly what they are saying. Given that it is only a couple of days since I had to redact a nasty bit of racism by the same editor here [22] I do wonder if we have a problem here. Black Kite (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem like there is any CTOP restriction on UK politics. The closest is WP:NORACISTS, which is just an essay. Anyways, it seems the system is working well when bad edits seem to be caught out and reverted, right? The UK Riots definitely raised the temperature for a bit. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a CTOP restriction if people are simply violating community norms. Black Kite (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major Sunni-Shia Conflicts (7th Century-Present)

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

Disputed draftification (which I struggled to find amongst the welter of moves!). Fails WP:V, entirely unreferenced. Draftify pending references since there is likely inherent notability. WP:DRAFTIFY means I cannot do this unilaterally and a consensus must be formed to do so. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Religion, and Islam. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as per nominator. The alternative would be deletion, but draftification is better. This article fails verifiability. The conflicts listed focus too heavily on modern conflicts and does not refer to the Fitnas. Instruct the originator not to move the document in question. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, unsourced but very likely has notability. However, what counts as a "Sunni-Shia conflict" should definitely be clarified (is it any war between Sunni and Shia nations, or only those with a major religious aspect?) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify the topic is highly contentious and not one we should allow poorly-assembled and patchily-sourced content in mainspace. Mccapra (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I agree with everyone else, which is why I draftified it in the first place. -- asilvering (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Stickyrainbow has republished the article under the name Major Sunni–Shia Conflicts (1169-Present).Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhimmath

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

Disputed draftification, albeit a few months ago. This is a WP:ROTM charity, albeit performing a useful role. Nothing about it is shown to pass WP:CORP. WIkipedia is not a directory of charities, however useful they are. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Education, and Kerala. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Two editors have stated the opinion on the creating editor's user talk page that this is likely to be UPE. @Zoglophie and DoubleGrazing: you may wish to offer a contribution to this discussion. I am not seeking to influence the type of contribution you may choose to make. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : looks like the author waited for the dust to settle down before sneaking into disruptively publishing the page into mainspace yet again with long standing COI concerns all littered over in his talk page. I think all his edits need to be examined at ANI. zoglophie^•talk• 14:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability, should never have left the draft space (and that's before even considering the COI/UPE issue). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article says that the organization exists. That does not make it organizationally notable. The article does not speak for itself and does not describe what third parties have said about the organization. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un

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

Exactly what a dictionary definition is, exactly what Wikipedia is not, see WP:NOTDICT. My prod was deleted by a guest user. SJD Willoughby (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I bring up Wikihow and Quaran websites, none of which are helpful, as sourcing in my search. I don't see why we need this, the sourcing now used basically just confirms it exists where it says it does. Oaktree b (talk) 23:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICT, WP:DUE. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-brainer, not a dictionary. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is true the article in it's current form is more of a dictionary entry but when deciding to delete something or not the current state of the article is not that important, the significance of the topic is. I believe that because this phrase has cultural/religious significance that can be seen in its wide usage when someone dies in middle eastern cultures it is significant in the same way the article "Raining cats and dogs" is. Therefore I believe it should be kept on that basis as it is a common expression and other common expressions also have articles. EvilxFish (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and a lot of Wikipedia articles are kind of like dictionaries anyway since they have a title and give the definition, such as the article on cats. They're just much more detailed. Like you said, this saying also has such cultural and religious significance that it deserves its own article. This saying is referred as the "Istirja", so maybe that could be the article's title instead. I think that'd be better but I say keep it! BlueOtaku8000 (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a second, unbolded Keep comment so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this phrase, along with other ones such as the basmala, tasbih, etc, should just be thrown on Wiktionary. There's a table on the Dhikr page with commonly used phrases, so we could just swap out those links for the Wiktionary links. AmrAlWatan^{(🗣️|📝)} 02:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Commercial Law

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

I added three sources to this article, as it had previously been unsourced for 19 years, but I don't think any are helpful for notability. The first merely says that the book was published and what it was about, the second is a book that cites the book and summarizes its arguments, and the third is a review from a British politician's personal website which would be useful however owing to its self published nature is probably not countable for notability. Nothing that actually discusses the book, not enough for WP:NBOOK.

It is frustrating that this book appears to be non-notable, as it appears to be very highly cited (confounding my effort to find discussion of it). Redirect to Mohammad Hashim Kamali? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the book is "very highly cited" then it satisfies the guideline WP:TBK. NBOOK, like PROF, is, by design, not just a rehash of GNG. The book has some coverage in Reference and Research Book News, and a thorough description of the book (which will not fit in the author's article) is helpful. [I struck my previous !vote which discussed possible merger and redirection targets.] James500 (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@James500 My interpretation of WP:TBK is that it is a rationale for relaxing the degree of sigcov required for academic publications, but not that it is an excuse to not have any - it's phrased in a vague way that imply a combination of several of these factors may help, and this doesn't hit too many of them. The R&R Book News publication is two sentences which just summarize the book - they don't really do reviews, it's usually just a sentence on "this book was published and here is what it's about", which can be helpful but which does not help notability IMO. AFAIK it is generally frowned upon to only have material in an article that is sourced from the topic itself, and that's really all we can get here. "very" highly cited was probably an overestimation on my part, but it does have some yes PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of TBK is mistaken. TBK says nothing about "significant coverage". The entire purpose of TBK is to disapply GNG. James500 (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well TBK is vague and does not have any clear-cut guidelines like NBOOK does, only "possible findings" and a suggestion to use common sense. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The possible findings for notability under WP:TBK, as listed without elaboration, are some combination of the following:

whether the book is published by an academic press, (no)

how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media, (cited a decent amount, but not to an exceptional degree)

the number of editions of the book, (a few, not very high)

whether one or more translations of the book have been published, (none)

how influential the book is considered to be in its specialty area, (not very)

whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions (no)

Hence, I disagree with a keep vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at GScholar, Kamali seems to have an exceptional level of citation. The average h-index for a law professor is less than 3, because it is a low citation field for academics. He is said to be "the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language". I am tempted to invoke BKCRIT #5. James500 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he's definitely notable. BKCRIT #5 only applies to people whose "life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.", which he is not, but I guess I can see your case here. Unfortunate that we only have an article on what appears to be the least notable of his many works. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The book "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures and Options" has 333 GScholar citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Futures" has 75 citations. The preceding article "Islamic Commercial Law: An Analysis of Options" has 66 citations. That is a total of 474 citations. I would say that it actually is very highly cited. James500 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 24 August 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

Battle of Rumal

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

Low quality article about a relatively non notable event with limited coverage within sources. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from a quick glance at Google books there are various mentions of this battle. Notability is not temporary, so if it was notable at the time it is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AfD is not the place to raise quality concerns. --Soman (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Soman None of the sources have any WP:SIGCOV significant coverage of the topic. This seems like it would be better suited for a consolidated page like Hill States-Sikh wars. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This all references incline in this article are more than sufficient with solidarity sourced apparently this article don’t need any kind of insertion 2402:8100:217A:E8B4:ADBA:BB28:A502:E613 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: I am a frequent recipient of harassment and targeting by an incredibly pertinacious sockmaster-[23] who created more than a dozen burner accounts in just the past year solely to target me. His socks most recently targeted my AFDs and PRODs- [24] and [25] and [26] and [27]. The most recent examples are this- in which his IP/proxy removed my PROD on the article Katoch-Sikh war, 2 admins have stated that this was almost certainly HB block evading- [28] + [29]. He has also employed meat puppetry to target AFDs and PRODs. Note that this IP also created a draft for Katoch-Sikh war, the same page HB's sock targeted, very heavily indicating sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry at play here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the IP has the exact same writing style as HB. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry what, It upon their own determination rather He isSockpuppet or intruder but definitely non of your expedition but suspiciously why did you creating pointless arguments you don't have any right to blast decretory statement on someone else you might face some serious consequences for such speculation @Southasianhistorian8 MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newly created account creating same articles that were AFDed and successfully deleted by me-[30] + [31]. Thanks. Will be taking to SPI or AN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In addition to very obviously being HB's sock/meatpuppet, you can see the IP and the account are clearly operated by the same person since they both submitted their drafts (Battle of Rori Sahib, Battle of Ambala, and Katoch Sikh war) minutes apart from each other-[32] + [33]. At the very very least, these votes should be accorded zero weight and obviously proves my point of a sock/meat campaign to target AFDs/reinstate articles which aggrandize their religion. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you but how regressively your oppressing other on behalf of their religion with propagating your pathetic statement you need to be calm down sir for our both MasterofRepulse (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: MasterofRepulse has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But not the blocked editor you accused him of being a sock of. Again, let's keep this out of AFDLand. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion in hopes of more participation. Please focus on the article, its sources and whether or not notability is established. Stop making accusations about other editors, it doesn't help whatever argument you are making. If you suspect sockpuppetry, head to SPI, don't bring it up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Could only find trivial namedrops in books. No significant coverage. C F A 💬 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The source genuinely incline the subject sustainably prior to the broader spectrum of historical event took place in Punjab convicting Battle of Rumal and numerously mentioned on various intermediating topics so in this case deletion is unnecessary for sure 14.247.79.217 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC) open proxy-[34][reply]
Delete as per nomination. No significant coverage. NorthSiderRock (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even ignoring opinions from accounts with few edits, I don't see a consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, the article has very little sources with no significant coverage. Noorullah (talk) 16:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous