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

Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light

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

I came across this article as it was linked on Ahmadiyya as 'not to be confused with'. The organisation seems to be new, and not notable enough. Out of the sources listed on the article, only one seems to be from academia, the other sources seem to be in relation to issues surrounding the religion. Google search does not seem to yield reliable/relevant sources about the religion.

All of the users who have contributed to the article also seem to be newcomers, with the exception of one user who has been around for a year. The article seems to serve as ADVOCACY. HolyArtThou (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting to Abdullah Hashem, the founder of the movement, seems reasonable. Much of the current text appears to focus on him. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMV the sect is more notable than the founder, so I’d favour redirecting the article on him to this ine, but that’s not on the table. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. IMO this will probably be notable sometime, but this has only gotten coverage in CESNUR which while the people who write for it are respected academics when publishing elsewhere is too opinionated to be RS. But usually anything they write about will be published in better outlets eventually. Just wait till then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagore Dargah Kalifa

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

Clear COI issues, since creator shares the same name as the article's title. Article is written with very poor grammar, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. The author also created a second article, Kalifa Masthan Sahib, which appears to be a duplicate of this same topic. Not sure if the subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete―poorly written and created to promote Kalifa Masthan Sahib.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrotsav of Brahmo Samaj

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

Can't find any good sources, the article has potential close paraphrasing issues, and is very poorly written. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and India. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- It's been tagged with zero sources for two years. Plenty of time for an interested party to step-in. Indeed, even at creation 11 years ago, the article only had two non-reliable (and what appear to be primary) sources. I would recommend a merger with Brahmoism but that article doesn't even have a "holidays" section. (If you're interested, Brahmo looks ripe for deletion, as well. MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep― Found this Telegraph article, which is significant, and a Google Books search shows more results here.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article can be summed up as 'usually deserted Bhadrotsab festival celebrated.' It doesn't go into much detail on the tenets of the religion. Relevant quotes:
- “Though the samaj was founded on August 20, 1828, corresponding to the 6th day of Bhadra, the programme has been organised today, as Sunday is convenient for all,” said Diptiman Bose, one of the few Brahmos in the capital.
- Hindus were the majority in the audience, for whom it was a reminder of an important historical event.
The Google Books results seem fairly passing also, but it's hundreds of pages to dig through. I really get the impression that this is perhaps mergeable. The Google Books might be of help, but Jay Cubby 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merging into Brahmo_Samaj#Brahmo_Sabha seems like a better option as an ATD. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep few significant media source available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with MWFwiki - I see some mention of this (Bhadrotsab) in Brahmo Samaj - maybe some details (year/date if source supports) from here can be added there. Asteramellus (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika

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

Subject does not meet criteria for WP:NJOURNALS (journal is included in selective citation indices, indexing services, and bibliographic databases) and lacks independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Recon rabbit 14:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bangladesh and Academic journals. Recon rabbit 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, Philosophy, Music, History, Law, Politics, Business, Religion, Science, Biology, Economics, and Social science. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom.CharlesWain (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that WP:NJOURNALS states that "It is possible for a journal not to be notable under this guidance but still meet WP:GNG for other reasons", so failing WP:NJOURNALS is not necessarily a reason to delete. Also, WP:NJOURNALS#C2 says that "The comprehensiveness of the coverage varies by field, geography, language", and it may be the case that Bangla journals are not well covered. I found this article [1] that says that none of the academic journals published by the University of Dhaka are indexed by leading databases. Interestingly, the authors of that article did not have access to data about Dhaka Viswavidyalay Patrika / ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় পত্রিকা during their research. I think that we would need to look at Bangladeshi publications (whether in English or in Bangla) to assess whether this journal might meet WP:GNG. Hopefully someone with such access will participate here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look like this journal published by the University of Dhaka is indexed by any databases, from what MIAR tells me. It may be the case that this is a candidate to redirect to University of Dhaka rather than deletion, as was the case for the Azerbaijan Journal of Educational Studies, the only member of Category:Azerbaijani-language journals, which redirects to Ministry of Science and Education (Azerbaijan). Recon rabbit 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RebeccaGreen you are rigth that a journal can be notable even if it misses NJournals. However, in that case it has to be shown to meet WP:GNG and I don't see evidence for that either. --Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

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

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A before search brought up possible Italian scholarly articles on this church. No comment on notability yet though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Religion Proposed deletions

Religion Templates

Atheism

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Buddhism

Templates

Miscellaneous

Christianity

Rev. Roger Lynn

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

Only notable for one thing, the marriage of Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, to which the article should redirect, per WP:BIO1E. Fram (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regardless of what happens, the proper title for this article would dispense with "Rev.". ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did some searching myself, seems like a clear WP:BLP1E; not much notable coverage that isn't related to the one event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of the subject at all, just mentions of his role in the ceremony. (The article is also full of original research and the footnotes are a disaster, but that's neither here nor there.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regrettably, the coverage of this individual is less about them and more about an event they were party to. Since they appear to have otherwise been periphery to the relevant movements/events, I don't see a case for individual notability. A shame, too, as someone clearly worked hard on this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The story is needed to offer a quick link to learn more about the pastor who dared to perform the world's first legal same-sex marriage.Y6f&tP4z (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957

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

This article is a rambling mess that spends no time at all describing the supposed subject, a land grant. I'm not making a notability argument here, more of a blow it up and start over argument.

If the charter itself is notable, the article should be about that, but this article wanders from one subject to another, like what kind of farming Danish Vikings may have done on this land before the charter, what kinds of rushes like what kind of soil, a three-hundred-year timeline of the area that was the subject of the charter, etc. I don't know what this is supposed to be, but it does not look like an article about a land charter. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the nom statement, but in addition, even if the charter were independently notable (it is not), the best place to discuss it anyway would be Abingdon Abbey. A redirect would not be appropriate; this is not a reasonable search term. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tempted to nominate it when I added the maintenance templates 3 months ago, and nothing has improved since I flagged the issues. Even if the topic is notable, it would be easier to start from scratch than try to fix the current article which is pure WP:SYNTH going far beyond what any of the citations support. Joe D (t) 20:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an article. Someone's notes on tangentially-related topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least, get it out of mainspace. This is a draft at its fetal stage. Qwirkle (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Goodness gracious. This is many things. A coherent article is not one of them. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Possible subject for a PhD. But not enough material out there for an article right now and I don't see cause to presume notability. TNT considerations are also valid. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In terms of notability, the article Anglo-Saxon charters lists two volumes of Charters of Abingdon Abbey, published by Oxford University Press in 2000 and 2001 - this article references neither. This charter might be individually notable, or the collection of charters to Abingdon Abbey might be, but it's not clear without access to the sources what a notable topic might be, and it's definitely not this strange conglomeration of information. I agree, WP:TNT applies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a useful encyclopedia article. PamD 11:50, 19 January 2025 (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 Cheslyn Hay. asilvering (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Church, Cheslyn Hay

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

Likely not notable under WP:NCHURCH.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Cremastra
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
www.cannockchasemethodists.org.uk				✘ No
The South Staffordshire Local List				✘ No
Dunphy Church Heating				✘ No
Express & Star				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Christianity, and England. Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheslyn Hay under a header along the lines of ==Landmarks==. Noteworthy in context, but not necessarily independently notable. BD2412 T 19:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Cremastra (u — c) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}} due to malformed formatting. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay. In addition to the sources listed in the article, it's likely there's content on the church in Cheslyn Hay - The Golden Years and The Bygone Days of Cheslyn Hay (both listed on a well known website). They're picture & caption books, but unable to determine amount of coverage. The church building also comes under WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG so I believe the WP:SIGCOV requirement can be met by adding together reliable, independent sources, whereas WP:NCHURCH evaluates each source separately for significant coverage. Nonetheless, insufficient verified coverage to make more than a stub. Agree with the previous contributor's merge appraisal. Rupples (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay, which currently uses an image of the church but doesn't otherwise mention it, let alone source it. Relevant categories can be attached to the redirect, if sourced in the target article. PamD 11:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a Historic England listed building it would probably pass WP:GEOFEAT but its only locally listed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the British Newspaper Archive, which I only have search access to, there's a chance this might be able to be saved. Unfortunately there have been a lot of local newspaper mentions of this church so SIGCOV doesn't come up easily - for instance it may have been mentioned in a London paper in 1863 but I don't have access to that article. As it stands, the article as written does not pass our guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 19:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay. As PamD says, to have the church as the only Cheslyn Hay image, but not to mention it in the body of that article seems odd. It isn't sufficiently Notable for a stand-alone. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2025 (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.

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

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

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A before search brought up possible Italian scholarly articles on this church. No comment on notability yet though. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wilson (pastor)

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

3/6 sources are his organization. Another is dead link. There is only this [2] and apparently a mention in a book. If it should not be deleted it can probably be merged with Metro World Child. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Massachusetts, and New York. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No WP:PAYWALL-compliant argument against notability articulated. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a PDF of the book online. He is only mentioned in a paragraph about Metro World Child. Do you think a sentence in a book about his organization and a local news article is enough for more than mentioning in the article about his organization? 🄻 🄰 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Sweden Yearly Meeting (via WP:PROD on 6 November 2024)

Categories for discussion

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

Miscellaneous

Hinduism

Ajgaibibi

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

Current source do not support this article and google book search does not return much to improve the artcile. Wiki Library returned no match. One source cited is an encyclopedia for "Oladevi" and the term "Ajgaibibi" is mentioned only once. Also, the cited source does not give clarity that this word is used for Hindu goddess as described currently in the lead sentence. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Asteramellus (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrotsav of Brahmo Samaj

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

Can't find any good sources, the article has potential close paraphrasing issues, and is very poorly written. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Hinduism, and India. Jay Cubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- It's been tagged with zero sources for two years. Plenty of time for an interested party to step-in. Indeed, even at creation 11 years ago, the article only had two non-reliable (and what appear to be primary) sources. I would recommend a merger with Brahmoism but that article doesn't even have a "holidays" section. (If you're interested, Brahmo looks ripe for deletion, as well. MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep― Found this Telegraph article, which is significant, and a Google Books search shows more results here.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Telegraph article can be summed up as 'usually deserted Bhadrotsab festival celebrated.' It doesn't go into much detail on the tenets of the religion. Relevant quotes:
- “Though the samaj was founded on August 20, 1828, corresponding to the 6th day of Bhadra, the programme has been organised today, as Sunday is convenient for all,” said Diptiman Bose, one of the few Brahmos in the capital.
- Hindus were the majority in the audience, for whom it was a reminder of an important historical event.
The Google Books results seem fairly passing also, but it's hundreds of pages to dig through. I really get the impression that this is perhaps mergeable. The Google Books might be of help, but Jay Cubby 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merging into Brahmo_Samaj#Brahmo_Sabha seems like a better option as an ATD. EmilyR34 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep few significant media source available. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with MWFwiki - I see some mention of this (Bhadrotsab) in Brahmo Samaj - maybe some details (year/date if source supports) from here can be added there. Asteramellus (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murugan Chillayah

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

Looking at the given sources:

[3] is not SIGCOV and only links him as a contact, also not independent as it's a partnership with his association
[4] and [5] do not mention him at all
[6] is IMDB
[7] is his association's official website (primary)
[8] only lists his association in a bullet list of many others, no SIGCOV
[9] is another of his websites
[10] is an interview he gave to a council his association joined, neither independent nor secondary
[11] is another SIGCOV-free bullet list
[12] doesn't mention him, and, looking at the context of how it was used, wouldn't have been independent either way
[13] is his speaker profile at an event, not independent
[14] is literally an advertisement
[15] is the same as the first source, but this time with the title of a different paragraph
[16] is yet another list with no content beyond names
[17] and [18] are open letters he helped writing, very primary
[19] gives me an error 404, but appears to be another open letter

All in all, out of 17 references, exactly zero provide secondary, independent SIGCOV, making this a very likely WP:GNG failure. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism, Malaysia, and India. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this link should work (grabbed from archive). You're right that it's just another open letter. Procyon117 (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage - there's virtually nothing about him, rather than open letters to which he's signed. The page is also so poorly written as to be nonsensical. Was this drafted by generative AI or Google translate? Bearian (talk) 06:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thank you for source analysis and after evaluating the sources myself, page fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Gopan Swami

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

Not encyclopedic. Just a sensational news in Malayalam media, see WP:RECENTISM. Lacks long-term notability and fails WP:EVENTCRIT. also refer WP:NOTNP. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Hinduism, Spirituality, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's far too soon to decide if anything noteworthy has actually happened here, or whether events develop and go on being discussed in future years. So far it looks much as nom suggests, not encyclopedic material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable event with no significant lasting effect and has no enduring historical significance and does not meet the general notability guideline. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2025 (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.

Rudra Shiva (statue)

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

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources include two travel blogs, Tumblr, a Tripadvisor-like website, three websites promoting tourism in the area, and one news article. Suggest redirecting to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Travel and tourism, Mythology, Hinduism, India, and Chhattisgarh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: There does seem to be a book written about the statue which contains articles/chapters written by several scholars including Michael W. Meister and Hans T. Bakker. However, I cannot access this source presently, and the article in its current form doesn't really say anything that isn't already mentioned in the article about the temples, and I suspect parts of it were written using ChatGPT. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Please see below[reply]

* Redirect to Devrani_Jethani_Temple_Complex#Rudra_Shiva_Statue. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC) See note below.[reply]

Delete The title of this article is actually not specific to the statue at this temple complex - Rudra is a name of Shiva / Siva (see Shiva, Rudra, and also [20], and there could be (probably are) many statues of Shiva in the form of Rudra. If anyone was searching for this particular statue, they would be likely to include a place name - and indeed, the book found by AmateurHi$torian and an article I found on Google Scholar [21] refer to it as the Tala Icon or the Tala Siva. (Both of those sources are already included as references in the article Devrani Jethani Temple Complex, though not in this article.) So I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. I think it might be more appropriate to include a photo of this statue and a link to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex in the Rudra article - or a list within that article of notable statues of Rudra - and certainly better to delete this, it doesn't add anything to what's already in the Devrani Jethani Temple Complex article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think this content should be merged (and redirected) into the Rudra Shiva statue section of Devrani Jethani Temple Complex because it's possible there are other statues of this god such as at Rudra Mahalaya Temple and Rudranath. Also, there are other temples like Shivoham Shiva Temple that have famous statues which don't have their own articles. Lakshwadeep (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The solution to this problem would be to disambiguate, not delete. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or keep. A good amount of info is clearly available, but it seems like consensus is saying its not enough for separate article. Keep the info, dump the rest. It does seem likely that a book and article being written about something would refute the claim that it fails WP:GNG Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, well sourced, meets GNG, and per above there is an entire book written about it. Given the sources and topic I'm not understanding why this is even nommed. At first I thought this was a piece of modern art, quite sophisticated for its era. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source Analysis:
- Source 1, boloji.com is unreliable source where if you love to write and share, your name can also be a part of boloji's ever-growing list after you agree to their terms.
- Source 2 is a district tourism page promoting the tourist location.
- Source 3 is unreliable Tumblr. (Social media)
- Source 4, trip.com, has nothing significant or even passing mention.
- Source 5, Chattisgarh tourism pdf page promoting the tourism place and tourism information centers.
- Source 6, inditales is unreliable Travel blog.
- Source 7, naidunia, news and current Affairs portal, covering news from the states of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. This has same promotional content from tourism sites.WP:NEWSORGINDIA.
- Source 8, same chattisgarh tourism page with promotion and advertising excursions, packages for the tour. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entire book written about this statue (see above comment), which qualifies as a reference. The statue is obviously notable as an artwork, and that it is part of an existing temple has little to do with this stand-alone notability. Quite the statue. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to access those books and maybe that is why they are not on the page maybe because of lack of content verification. Going by the sources on the page, Redirect or even delete is strong case as made by RebeccaGreen. I do not see with poor sources on the page, what is to be merged unless those books can be accessed. If anyone can access those books, please let me know and I can check to see if Merge to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex is also an option. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is kept, I recommend renaming it to Tālā Rudra Shiva, for the reasons I gave above. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think Devrani_Jethani_Temple_Complex#Rudra_Shiva_Statue has much better coverage with reliable sources where changing the name from Rudra Shiva Statue to Tālā Rudra Shiva is feasible. RangersRus (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. The article is in poor shape, but the existence of a book focused on this statue and held in many academic libraries [22] demonstrates notability. I have no objection to a rename. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page Devrani_Jethani_Temple_Complex#Rudra_Shiva_Statue where I am proposing to Redirect to has good enough coverage with reliable sources talking about the statue at the Complex. I do not think we need a separate page for it. RangersRus (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescue - While the article is in poor shape, I've found another source (a PhD thesis) which covers the subject in some detail, and now think it can be rescued even if we cannot access the book edited by Nigam. I've prepared a draft at User:AmateurHi$torian/sandbox1 -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the renaming as proposed by RebeccaGreen, per their rationale. "Tala" is specified in all academic sources. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu empires and dynasties

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

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Lists, Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, India, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, low quality is not the same as lack of notability. In this case, there is no doubt that there have been many dynasties in India (however that region is construed). Citations definitely can be found; most of the entries are clearly correct; the rest can certainly be remedied by normal editing, which is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Indian empires and dynasties as the most states on the list were actually Indian or situated in Indian subcontinent. In this sense renaming would be appropriate. Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything in that list is in Indian subcontinent. Some are from southeast asia, such as Majapahit and Srivijaya. They are among the two biggest Hindu empire outside India. The only reason that it looks insignificant because the list is very poorly written, making them easy to miss. - Ivan530 (Talk) 19:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have many other lists, like List of princely states of British India (by region), separately List of princely states of British India (alphabetical), List of Rajput dynasties and states, List of dynasties and rulers of Rajasthan. To avoid even more duplication, I think that continuing the current scope (sticking to the Hindu kingships would be wise). Викидим (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree, the Hinduism is of later origin, whereas in place of modern Hinduism, Brahmanism was present in ancient India. The article inaccurately cites several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, which is historically incorrect and misleading. Nxcrypto Message 05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along the lines of WP:TNT due to WP:OR. I have spent a significant amount of time trying to figure out the origins of dates and locations in this list, and can testify that the format of a list is uniquely unsuitable for looking at really deep layers of Indian history. Essentially (please note that I am not an expert and not even an amateur in this area, so please take this with a grain of salt), there is no written history that pre-dates the 1st millennium AD, and no chronicles for a long time even after that, the first definite royal dates apparently are from the times of Guptas. While this is generally not a problem for a researcher, putting a verifiable date of an early Indian history into a table is usually not possible. Note the cite requests I added to all the dates of the 2nd millennium BC, predictably, no sources were added. As a practical example, let's take the first entry in the list (it actually became the first after I have removed the earlier mythical empires with completely random dates to the bottom of the list), Kuru kingdom. This list states 1900BC (note the exactness), our own article says 1200 BC. The issue in reality is so much harder than our articles portrays, there are tons of texts written trying to date this (non-mythical!) kingdom. Quoting our Kuru kingdom: The main contemporary sources for understanding the Kuru kingdom are the Vedas. But ... practically all historians agree that Vedas were written down in the 1 millennium AD and thus cannot be "contemporary" if 1200 BC date is to be believed, and also contain very little in terms of dates in general, and definitely nothing so precise for the Kuru Kingdom. As an example of a professional's assessment of Kuru, one might want to look at Michael Witzel's work, The Realm of the Kuru: Origins and Development of the First State in India. He plainly states: our approach has primarily to be a textual one; there remains little else that can tell us something about this period ... yet after some 150 years of study, the Vedic period as a whole does not seem to have a history. He continues: the first fixed date in Indian history that is usually mentioned is that of the Buddha around 500 BCE. In an earlier work Early Sanskritization. Origins and development of the Kuru state Witzel states, The evolvement of the small tribal Bharata domination into that of a much larger Kuru realm is not recorded by our texts. The Kurus suddenly appear on the scene in the post-Rigvedic texts. Once again, there is nothing wrong with this material, but it cannot be neatly packed into a table. Therefore, the only way for us to write this list is to find a modern chronological source and base the list on it. Attempts to haphazardly create our own list based on disjoint sources will miserably fail as the purest WP:OR. Until such a source is found and agreed upon, this list will only sow confusion among our readers. Once the source is found, the list will have to be written from scratch anyhow. Personally, I would propose to start with [23] (please read the one-paragraph introduction!). --Викидим (talk) 06:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looking at the article, though not well written, i will go for keeping it. There is always scope for improvement in this area. Rahmatula786 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a topic that is covered in this particular way by WP:Reliable sources? We can't really keep this if it isn't. TompaDompa (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that so-called topic Hindu empires and dynasties in this specific form is not covered by reliable sources. Most scholarly works discuss these kingdoms in terms of regional history, political evolution, or religious influences, but not as a consolidated list with a clear focus on "Hindu" identity. This leads to a reliance on synthesis and original research, violating WP:V and WP:NOR. The article perpetuates inaccuracies by including non-Hindu dynasties and presenting speculative timelines, which distorts history. Mr.Hanes Talk 04:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IN my search for sources, I have discovered few Hindu kingdom lists, but they were much shorter and quite focused on some aspect of the total set. Викидим (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom Koshuri Sultan (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the definition for "Hindu empire / dynasties" here? Because from the list's lead and Kingship (Hinduism) I assume that it's Empire / dynasties that adopt Hinduism as it's religion. But from the way it's mentioned in this discussion multiple times, it might means something else. Am I missing something? - Ivan530 (Talk) 06:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to my modifications of the lead, it read The following list enumerates Hindu empires and dynasties in chronological order. Pinging @Fidolex: who wrote it back in 2018. My interpretation was simple: Hindu indicated adherence to Hinduism, not some particular geography of era, so I have added a link to the (newly created) Kingship (Hinduism) in 2024. Researchers routinely use terms like "Hindu kingdoms/dynasties" to denote the monarchies that were based on Hinduism principles, similar to other state religions, so this interpretation is not my WP:OR. See, for example, [24]. Викидим (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analysis would be the best way to decide this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Miscellaneous

Hinduism Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Islam

Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light

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

I came across this article as it was linked on Ahmadiyya as 'not to be confused with'. The organisation seems to be new, and not notable enough. Out of the sources listed on the article, only one seems to be from academia, the other sources seem to be in relation to issues surrounding the religion. Google search does not seem to yield reliable/relevant sources about the religion.

All of the users who have contributed to the article also seem to be newcomers, with the exception of one user who has been around for a year. The article seems to serve as ADVOCACY. HolyArtThou (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Islam. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirecting to Abdullah Hashem, the founder of the movement, seems reasonable. Much of the current text appears to focus on him. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMV the sect is more notable than the founder, so I’d favour redirecting the article on him to this ine, but that’s not on the table. Mccapra (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. IMO this will probably be notable sometime, but this has only gotten coverage in CESNUR which while the people who write for it are respected academics when publishing elsewhere is too opinionated to be RS. But usually anything they write about will be published in better outlets eventually. Just wait till then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moinuddin Hadi Naqshband

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Jammu and Kashmir. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Historical figure of cultural significance. And there are multiple reliable sources mentioned as citations. Maybe this article needs to be improved. But before nominating for deletion, you should always consider Wp:BEFORE. Zuck28 (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirza Nizamuddin

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Punjab. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mahmud Agha

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Mir Fazlullah Agha

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to the fact that the article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources. The article's content is not verified by reliable, independent sources, and instead the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. Furthermore, the article may have factual inaccuracies because the content contained within it is not corroborated by reliable sources. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Islam, and Afghanistan. HyperShark244 (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Yemen

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

Quite the same reason as of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Yemen. A WP:REDUNDANTFORK and an unwarranted WP:SPLIT with no consensus at Talk:List of wars involving Yemen. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Islam, Lists, Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Russia, and Cuba. Garuda ^Talk! 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and Middle East. Garuda ^Talk! 19:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Garuda ^Talk! 19:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Historical country. Merging with List of wars involving Yemen makes a statement on the ongoing secessionist conflict ("South Yemen = Yemen"). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge there, I didn't even call for that. The only thing I'd suggest is gaining consensus to WP:PROSPLIT the List of wars involving Yemen Garuda ^Talk! 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. BilletsMauves^€500 21:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and WP:POINT. This page unnecessarily duplicates information already available elsewhere on Wikipedia, which does not serve the user well. gidonb (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Hasan ibn Azimullah

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to a severe lack of reliable sources that verify its content, and the article contains promotional, irrelevant and genealogical content. The article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. Lastly, this page was nominated for deletion in 2020 [25], and was deleted thereafter. [26] HyperShark244 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Afghanistan. HyperShark244 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Onel5969: @Kinu: @TH1980: @HistoryofIran: @Izno: @AndreJustAndre: @UrielAcosta: @Drmies: @Kuru: HyperShark244 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the substance & sources don't seem to have improved over the previous version that was deleted. UrielAcosta (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm also 99% sure that the IP that created this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sayyid Mir Israfil. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero in-depth reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to severe lack of proper sources that could establish notability. TH1980 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving North Yemen

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

An obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of wars involving Yemen with no source whatsoever. Merging and redirecting are also unwarranted considering there is nothing to merge in its parent article and the list doesn't link to many articles to even consider a redirect. Garuda ^Talk! 09:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Egypt, Middle East, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen. Garuda ^Talk! 09:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are an easy fix that I can do right now and I think that the lists for North and South Yemen shoud be removed from List of wars involving Yemen 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the citation issue 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be a WP:SPLIT of the List of wars involving Yemen? That's not how it works. PS: You need to go through the Migration strategy Garuda ^Talk! 10:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North and South Yemen were two states that existed at the same time; Placing one over another might cause confusion for the time period esp for editors who know nothing about that stuff and are here for the modern Yemen part. Plus we dont have a "List of wars involving Korea" (We do have "List of wars involving Korea until 1948" tho) because those are different states 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OCON. Garuda ^Talk! 11:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per nom. A mere content fork of List of wars involving Yemen, there's no consensus to split the list. CelesteQuill (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure that I understand the part of the deletion rationale advocating against a merge. With the article now being well supported by sources, why would it not be possible? BilletsMauves^€500 13:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because it is WP:SAMETYPEFORK. There's no consensus on List of wars involving Yemen to WP:SPLIT the list. Garuda ^Talk! 15:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and let's ignore the explanation i gave above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~This does not answer my question about why it would not be possible to merge the article with List of wars involving Yemen. BilletsMauves^€500 17:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)~~ My bad, I did not see that this content used to be included in List of wars involving Yemen, but was removed after this AfD was started. BilletsMauves^€500 17:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as List of wars involving Yemen already exists. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and revert the change made on List of wars involving Yemen by Abo Yemen after this AfD was started. BilletsMauves^€500 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the article on August 2023 but forgot to delete the stuff from the main article. If this gets merged then the south's article should get merged too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving South Yemen. However there's nothing to merge or redirect at List of wars involving Yemen as it's just a same type fork. Garuda ^Talk! 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Repeating the same information across multiple pages does not serve the user effectively and goes against Wikipedia's goal of providing centralized, accurate content. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Shahram

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR No significant independent coverage of subject or CAMW organization she is associated with. Found one write-up in a small alumni magazine from 2005 (http://media.wix.com/ugd/ba8d3a_69ce4f04eab549e8992314f78621c089.pdf). There are a few sentences in larger papers like Fox from 2011 (https://www.foxnews.com/us/jury-convicts-new-york-tv-executive-of-beheading-wife) but doubt it rises to level of notability since they are not specifically about subject. No significant coverage located for book or minor awards. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Law, Islam, Iran, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick check on newspapers.com and there appear to be several articles where the subject has WP:SIGCOV. These include Buffalo News stories in the article that are deadlinks but are available in archive. I’ll need a day or two to do a more thorough look. Note this article passed AFC. Nnev66 (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is of a non-notable branch of the Jemaah Islamiya. WP:BEFORE search founds nothing that discusses the subject in depth and not merely mention. The only source does not even discuss the group in depth but of that of its leader, Noordin Mohammad Top. Maybe a merge with the article about the leader would suffice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam and Indonesia. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but not strongly opposed to a merge. I basically agree with the consensus of the last AfD for this article, where all participants broadly agreed on a weak keep and felt that a merge with Noordin Mohammad Top wasn't a terrible option but that it might not be ideal given that the group continued to exist after his death. That AfD also surfaced quite a few useful sources that indicate some notability (the best probably being [27] [28] [29]), although unfortunately a couple of the other links are now dead or paywalled. In addition to the sources from the last AfD, these books [30] [31] [32] [33] provide some discussion of the group, and a search of "Al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago" on Google Scholar turns up a number of non-trivial mentions from as recently as 2022. To be fair, I'm not able to find anything that goes into a great deal of depth, but I'm inclined to say it's enough. MCE89 (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Terrorism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Given that the group existed after he died I agree with the above that it is not a great merge target. We can have a serviceable article on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Arbijan

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

Likely hoax or misreading of sources. I searched in English Arabic and Turkish and found no sources at all. Creator has a record of writing dubious battle articles that get deleted. The second isbn number is dummy and the first one is real but inaccessibile. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Islam, and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misread the sources and I share them on sites like X as much as I can. Since some of the books are printed in Turkish, their English pages may not match, but I can prove this with visuals. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[34] Kurya Khan (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have confirmed the sources I provided. It is not true that the information I gave is a scam. If you wish, you can read the links I sent you and see that I wrote the truth. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

712 Battle of Samarkand.. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I have provided links to Turkish and English sources regarding the battle, and i can give you more if you wish. It is a completely inadequate conclusion that the article is a hoax and i request that it not be deleted Kurya Khan (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to tag Mccapra? The first two links are Twitter posts and the third is a page of a book which doesn't even mention Arbijan. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter links because this is how I was able to post Turkish sources with visuals. The third one says that the Turks were defeated in Samarkand in 712. Kurya Khan (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CITE, WP:VER and WP:NOTABLE. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need to post a twitter link to a photo of a page of a book if the book is published by a respectable publisher. There will generally be a google books version and sometimes other online-readable or downloadable versions. If you post links to those in this discussion we can all review them. There are plenty of people who can read Turkish in English Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra's comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2025 (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

Yossi Feldman

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP notability. Subject is a former local congregational rabbi (12 years) with no major organisational titles other than a term as president in a local rabbi group. Per existing sources, subject only appear notable due to his fumbled testimony in a royal Commission, this incident led to his synagogue firing him. (Possibly this is notable due to his lawsuit against media coverage?). Other sources relate to family squabbles or local gossip about donors withdrawing support. Overall, there's not enough here. I also note that a 2007 prod result was to delete the page. דברי.הימים (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Chalava

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

Non notable rabbi. From my searches only one source (an obscure one) accounts for his existence. On google, searching him up only nets 25 results, with the majority of them copying the en-wp article. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Created in 2011 with no inline sourcing. The "References" section is actually a template of other Wikipedia Rabbi articles. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikhism

Sikh-Rohilkhand War

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

Completely AI generated article based on hallucinated information, fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat this minor conflict as a war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long series of conflicts between the Sikhs and the Rohillas, and I have mentioned multiple references, including page numbers. Please verify them yourself. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's meet GNG Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing it's not hallucinated information i took AI help to complete article quickly and i mentioned multiple sources later with proper page number Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Sikhism, Delhi, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Mr.Hanes Talk 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move to Draft (to fix sources - needs some cleanup, and content is not encyclopedic and too verbose etc..) - not quite familiar with this, but others familiar with this can see if a page like this might provide some historical continuity (from my quick read on Kingdom of Rohilkhand) Asteramellus (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be a better option. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed this article as much as I could, multiple references have been mentioned in paragraph, I am going on a break now so I will not be able to participate in the discussion, My only suggestion is that you can either move this page to draft until I fix it completely,Jaspreetsingh6 (talk)

Miscellaneous